Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Newport Corporation (General Powers) Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Rotherham Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Leek) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Stoke-on-Trent) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Weymouth and Portland Joint Hospital District) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wycombe and District Joint Hospital District) Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE BOARD.

Mr. LAWSON: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he can now announce the names of the Unemployment Assistance Board to be set up under Part II of the Unemployment Act.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): In view of the immense importance of the work of the Board, affecting as it will the welfare of many millions of people, the Government have been most anxious that it should be composed of persons eminently fitted both by character and experience to fulfil the responsibilities which will rest upon it.
Above all, they have felt the necessity of finding a Chairman whose personal qualities were well known to the public and would be likely to command general confidence.
After an exhaustive examination of the whole field of selection open to them, the Government came to the conclusion that, if he could be persuaded to accept the post, by far the most suitable Chairman would be my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. My right hon. Friend's intimate knowledge of the Unemployment Act, his familiarity with the work of the Ministry where he has presided during the last two-and-a-half years and served for a still longer period with so much success, and his well-known qualities of sympathy and impartiality, would, in the view of the Government, be invaluable, especially in the early years of the Board. The Government recognised that, in asking my right hon. Friend to give up his seat in Parliament and to break off his political career in order to devote himself to this special service, they were asking him to make a very great sacrifice. But I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend has agreed, at the unanimous request of his colleagues to allow me to submit his name to His Majesty for this post.
Accordingly, His Majesty has approved of the following appointments:
The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Chairman).
Sir Ernest Strohmenger, lately of the Ministry of Health; now of the Treasury (Deputy Chairman).
Professor H. M. Halls worth, C.B.E., M.A., M.Com., B.Sc.
Dr. Thomas Jones, C.H., LL.D.
Miss Violet R. Markham, CH., J.P.
Mr. Matthew Reynard, J.P.

Mr. LAWSON: Can the Prime Minister say when this Part of the Act wilt begin to operate?

The PRIME MINISTER: No; I am not in a position to say yet. If my hon. Friend will be good enough to put any consequential supplementary questions to-my right hon. Friend who will be in my place next week, he will get the answers as far as it is possible to give them. The matter is still being worked out.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: May I say how much I, and, I am sure, my colleagues,
approve of the appointment of the Chairman, whom I consider to be an ideal man for the position? Would the Prime Minister, not so much for the benefit of the House, but for the benefit of the public outside, state the qualifications of all the other members of the Board?

The PRIME MINISTER: I was hoping that I might have that opportunity.
Professor Hallsworth is the David Dale Professor of Economics at Armstrong College, Newcastle-on-Tyne. He is Chairman of the Newcastle Local Employment Committee and Chairman of the Keg and Drum, Paper Box and Paper Bag Trade Boards. He was director of the Industrial Survey of the North East Coast area made for the Board of Trade in 1931, and he is the author, jointly with Professor S. J. Chapman, of one of the most authoritative books on unemployment, confining his studies to the area of Lancashire.
Dr. Thomas Jones has been Secretary of the Pilgrim Trust since 1930. He was formerly Deputy Secretary of the Cabinet Office, and Secretary of the Economic Advisory Council. He was Special Investigator of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws, 1906–1909; Professor of Economics in Queen's University, Belfast, 1909–10; Secretary of the Welsh National Campaign against Tuberculosis, 1910–11; and Secretary of the National Health Insurance Commissioners for Wales, 1912–19.
Miss Violet Markham (Mrs. Carruthers) is Chairman of the Central Committee on Women's Training and Employment; Deputy-Chairman of the Sugar Confectionery Trade Board and appointed member of the Cutlery Trade Board; and has been a member of the Industrial Court since 1920.
Mr. M. A. Reynard is Director of Public Assistance in the City of Glasgow. He was a member of the Consultative Council on Local Health Administration and General Health Questions from 1926 to 1929.

Mr. LAWSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether all these are full-time posts, and what the salaries will be?

The PRIME MINISTER: They are not all full-time posts; but perhaps my hon. Friend would be good enough to put that
question to the Lord President of the Council next week, when a complete answer, so far as is possible, will be given.

SEA FISHERIES REGULATION BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 163.]

Orders of the Day — ROAD TRAFFIC BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), further considered.

CLAUSE 5.—(Tests of competence to drive of new applicants for licences and of offenders ordered to be tested.)

11.12 a.m.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I beg to move, in page 6, line 31, to leave out from "for" to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert:
dispensing, in the case of persons not resident in Great Britain, with the requirements of sub-section (1) of this section.
This is a drafting Amendment which merely alters the form of an Amendment which I accepted in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments against persons insured in respect of third-party risks.)

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, in page 7, line 15, to leave out from "liability" to "covered" in line 16.

This Amendment goes with my next Amendment—in page 9, line 10, at the end, to insert:
and the expression 'liability covered by the terms of the policy' means a liability which is covered by the policy or which would be so covered but for the fact that the insurer is entitled to avoid or cancel, or has avoided or cancelled, the policy.
The object is to make quite clear the conditions under which liability arises. As the Bill stands, it was felt that it might be said that no liability arose because conditions were inserted in the policy which avoided liability in particular circumstances, but which, owing to a subsequent Clause in the Bill, are not allowed to be pleaded as against the injured third party. These Amendments will make the intention of the Clause quite clear.

11.14 a.m.

Mr. TURTON: I should like to ask the Minister if he could reconsider Clause 7 on account of this point, and also Clause 9, when the Bill is in another place? I would suggest that it will not be quite so clear as he confidently says it will be. One of the difficulties that now arise is that a definition is given of the words "liability to be covered by a policy,"
which is limited to the usual meaning, while in the line above the phrase is "the liability that is required to be covered by a policy," which means something quite different. I believe that here there is very good scope for the Second Chamber as a revising Chamber. This Clause really means little without the application of Clause 9. Perhaps if the Minister could in another place get Clauses 7 and 9 welded into one clear, comprehensive Clause it would be to the advantage of the Act.

Mr. STANLEY: I do not agree that there is any obscurity, but, of course, it will be quite possible, when the House has disposed of all the insurance Clauses, to look at this in the light of the final decision of the House and see if any better wording can be adopted in another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 10, at the end, insert:
and the expression 'liability covered by the terms of the policy' means a liability which is covered by the policy or which would be so covered but for the fact that the insurer is entitled to avoid or cancel, or has avoided or cancelled, the policy."—[Mr. Stanley.]

CLAUSE 9.—(Avoidance of restrictions on scope of policies covering third-party risks.)

11.17 a.m.

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move in page 9, line 37, after "thereby," to insert:
by reference to any of the following matters—

(a) the age or physical or mental condition of persons driving the vehicle; or
(b) the condition of the vehicle; or
(c) the number of persons carried in the vehicle; or
(d) the weight or physical characteristics e goods carried in the vehicle; or
(e) the times at which or the areas within which the vehicle is used; or
(f) the horse power or value of the vehicle; or
(g) the carrying on the vehicle of any particular apparatus; or
(h) the carrying on the vehicle of any particular means of identification other than any means of identification required to be carried by or under the Roads Act, 1920."

This Amendment arises out of certain proceedings in Committee. The Clause as amended deals with the question, if there are conditions in the policy which
would entitle the insurer as against the assured to say, "I need not pay," as to the extent to which the injured party should be prejudiced and should not get his money from the insurance company. In the original draft the Clause contained a certain exception. An Amendment was moved which would have made of no effect as against third parties all the conditions which might appear in the contract between the assurer and the assured. It was pointed out that a sweeping provision of that kind would lead inevitably in certain cases to the assured having to pay higher premiums, namely, those who are at present getting insurance at a cheaper rate because, for example, they only wanted to be covered if the motor car was used for certain limited purposes—take the case of a man who merely wanted to use a car to fetch gravel from a gravel pit to his work. My hon. Friend stated that he could not accept a Clause which swept away all conditions, but he was prepared, if the Committee decided in favour of such a provision in principle, to insert at this stage Amendments which would make of no effect so far the injured party was concerned certain conditions which had been suggested as ones which ought not to prejudice the injured party. It is in those circumstances that the Amendment is moved.
With regard to paragraph (b), the condition of the vehicle has been proved by experience to be one of the conditions on which insurance companies have most frequently relied, as far as they were concerned quite rightly, and, therefore, the injured party went without compensation. "The weight or physical characteristics of the goods carried in the vehicle," again, has fairly often arisen in practice. We have considered very carefully the various conditions that arise. There was one condition in a proposed new Clause which it has not been found possible to accept. It would bring within this category the condition that the vehicle should not be let out for hire. The premiums demanded when vehicles are let out for hire are naturally very much greater than the ordinary premium that an ordinary person has to pay. It is not at all a common care for someone to break that condition and let out on hire a vehicle which is not covered for hiring. We have thought it right not to put that in.

11.22 a.m.

Mr. JANNER: While agreeing that the Amendment covers a number of the points which have to be dealt with in respect of contingencies which may arise where insurance policies have restrictions. I am not satisfied that the exceptions go as far as they should. Of course, there are some circumstances, such as conditions against misrepresentation, where it might be impracticable or impossible to avoid results which might follow to the detriment of a person who was knocked down, but in those cases where it is not viciously wrong to ask for conditions of a nature which may interfere with an injured person obtaining relief, not to be inserted, I think the hon. Gentleman should go very much further than he has decided to go. I believe there are serious difficulties which may arise and which have not been taken into account. I do not think it would be such a very serious thing if the question of hire were included. At present it is difficult, because insurance companies have to provide in their policies for contingencies which arise in exceptional cases over hire. Assuming that the obligation was upon insurance companies in respect of all policies, I think that the premium that would be demanded would not be such a great increase upon the premium required in circumstances where a car is not to be let out on hire at present.
If you have the advantage of a small additional premium from all the policies instead of a large additional premium in respect of some of them, even if the premium were somewhat larger, the fact still remains that our anxiety, I believe the anxiety of the Minister and everybody else concerned, is that the individual who is injured should not suffer any disadvantage. Even if a slight hardship be entailed upon motor owners or upon any one else, I am convined that the opinion of the public as a whole is such as to be agreeable to all cases of injury being covered. I should like to ask the Minister—I may be wrong, though I think I am right—whether the Amendment does not exclude other cases which may arise. For example, there is the prohibition of the use of a motor car for certain purposes. An owner-driver may insure merely for the purpose of driving the car himself because he receives a reduction in the premium of 10 or 15 per cent. It may easily happen that some other member of
the family or some other person may for a short period, or even for a longer period, use the car either with or without the knowledge or consent of the owner. If an accident happens, it is a very serious thing indeed if the injured person is deprived of compensation. That is what it really meant in many cases in which a car was not at the time of the accident driven by the owner who had received a reduction of 10 or 15 per cent. on his premium because of the limited application of the policy. It may be argued that the person who is injured has a right of action against the person who has driven the car negligently, but we know that in practice you cannot get anything from the actual driver, and, if it be possible, you are thrown back upon the owner of the car or the insurance company.
I do not see anything in the Amendment which deals with the case in which an insurance policy is issued to cover two or more cars on condition that only one car shall be used at a time. Policies are issued with the limitation that the insurer will only be responsible in the event of one car being out at a time. It is obvious that occasions must arise when a person who is insured in that manner may have more than one car out on the road at the same time. In these circumstances, if a person be injured, he has no right of claim from the insurance company. There is the question of the use of a car for limited purposes. I have already referred to the letting out of a ear on hire, but there are other circumstances in which an insurance policy covers a person only when the car is being used for specific purposes. All these are considerations which a person who is taking out a policy has in mind at the time when he is called upon to exercise his discretion as to what kind of premium he is to pay. It is obviously an inducement to the person insuring to take out a policy of a limited nature, because in those circumstances he pays a smaller premium. It is not that such a person is vicious or that he does not feel as much as anyone else that a person who is injured ought to be compensated, but possibly for want of thought, or not realising what the results of an accident may be, he takes advantage of a smaller premium in order to be able to get a policy of a limited nature.
We ought to make the Clause very much wider. I hope that between now and the time that the Bill is considered in another place the Minister will go back to many of the points which were put in Committee and will reconsider the drafting of the Clause, so as to enable all cases to be covered. I base my request not only upon the advantage which will accrue to the community as a whole, which is the most important consideration and the advantage which will accrue to those who might be injured without having any right of recovering damages; but upon the belief that the extension of these restrictions is not such a serious thing from the point of view of persons paying the premium provided that they are extended to all policies. It is not as though it was merely a question of a small proportion of policies in respect of which the insurance company might turn round and say that because of these new conditions they are entitled to ask for a very much heavier premium, but it extends over the whole range of insurance. There the risk is distributed over all the insurance throughout the country and therefore the additional premium must needs be very much smaller, and in the circumstances is not regarded as a serious consideration by those called upon to pay it. I hope that the Minister will take these matters into consideration, because there are difficulties that have to be kept well in mind.

11.33 a.m.

Mr. TURTON: Those of us who pressed this matter in Committee and who have succeeded in getting conditions taken off felt disatisfied when we saw the list put out to-day. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner) has mentioned a number of conditions. With his native modesty he has omitted a condition which I brought to the notice of the Committee. There are policies which are null and void if the driver of the car should be of the Jewish religion. That condition everybody in the Committee thought to be a most monstrous condition to put into a policy, and it would be even more unfair that the man who was run over by the holder of a policy of that kind should, under those conditions, be penalised. The point was raised in Committee and it has not been met here. It not only applies to members of the Jewish religion, but also to certain professions, such as actors
and actresses. If a car be driven by an actor or an actress, the policy is rendered null and void. I ask the House to think of the poor man who is run over by an actress, and to do something to remedy that state of affairs.

Mrs. TATE: With regard to the hon. Member's reference to an actress running down somebody, if he will refer to the Road Accidents Report, he will find that women have very much better records as drivers in regard to the safety of cars than men.

Mr. TURTON: I have not found in my reading of the Road Traffic Act Accidents Report how many actresses have run down people. My statement referred to actors and actresses, and if the hon. Lady prefers it I will say that a person may have been run down by an actor. There is also the question of a car being limited to driving for business purposes and then being driven for pleasure. That is one way in which the policies very frequently become void, and consequently help the insurance company. Could we have a condition restricting the policy to a class of driver, the one-named driver, driving for business purposes also made void for this limited purpose? If the Minister goes through his list I think he will agree that he has left out a good many points that were raised in Committee. I know that there are some conditions that he must keep in. He must keep in anything that will enable the insurance companies to stop the man with a bad record from driving a car. I do not want to do anything to militate against that object, but there are some ridiculous conditions and discriminations that ought to be guarded against.

11.37 a.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: When this matter came before the Committee and Amendments on this point were discussed the Minister agreed to accept the principle. He said that he had listened carefully to the various arguments and that he agreed to accept the principle. Whilst admitting that the Amendment he has proposed is an improvement on the existing provisions, I do not think that it goes far enough. We have to bear in mind the position of the third party. It is the third party who is injured and he may be
left without any compensation. If between the insurance company and the person who has taken out a policy there has been anything that has not been quite proper, then the insurance company should take action against that particular person, and the third party who has been injured should have some guarantee that he is going to get compensation. I hope the Minister will give the matter further consideration and make any necessary alterations when the Bill goes to another place.

11.39 a.m.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: We have had interesting observations made on certain technical aspects of this matter which I do not wish to pursue, but I desire to say that this question affects a very large number of people outside the House and some inside the House. Some of us have come within the ambit of these difficulties. Let there be no illusion on the subject. This is a matter that many people are closely watching, and it is the duty of the Government, in reviewing the legislation, to vest the liability for injury in all reasonable circumstances. I trust that the Minister will carefully consider the cases mentioned by hon. Members opposite and ensure that cases of injury are covered by the revised law. I say that particularly for the reason that insuance companies in recent years have elaborated the science of evasion and avoidance which one immediately comes up against if one suffers any injury in connection with a motor-car accident. Excepting the old Employers' Liability Acts and the Workmens' Compensation Acts, I do not think that in any branch of law the remedies supplied by Parliament are more often evaded than in respect of insurance in regard to motor accidents. As a well-wisher of the Government I would urge my right hon. Friend, between now and a later stage of the Bill, carefully to review the matter and see whether further tightening up could not be done in order to reassure public opinion that all reasonable cases of injury are brought within the Statute.

11.41 a.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My hon. Friend made it quite clear in Committee that the Amendment that he would propose would not cover all cases. The principle which we have gone on is to try and cover cases which are common and to
bear in mind that if certain cases were put in the Clause it might inflict a considerable extra premium on all those who are quite willing to abide by the conditions which enable them to get a premium at a reduced rate. We will, however, carefully consider the observations which have been made. Without referring to them in detail, we were glad to have some of the cases brought to our attention, and we may be able to meet them.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 9, line 40, at the end, to insert:
Provided that nothing in this section shall require an insurer to pay any sum in respect of the liability of any person otherwise than in or towards the discharge of that liability, and any sum paid by an insurer in or towards the discharge of any liability of any person which is covered by the policy by virtue only of this section shall be recoverable by the insurer from that person.
This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 13.—(Payments and insurance in respect of emergency treatment of injuries arising from the use of motor vehicles on roads.)

11.41 a.m.

Captain STRICKLAND: I beg to move, in page 11, line 41, at the end, to insert:
In any case where the holder of a policy of insurance issued for the purposes of Part IV of the principal Act is entitled by the terms of the policy to a reduction of the amount of the premium payable in consideration of not having made a claim on the insurer for payment under the policy the right of such holder to a reduction of premium shall not be affected by a payment by the insurer to meet a claim under this section if the injury out of which the claim arose was caused by the wrongful act of some other person than the holder of the policy.
I move this Amendment because there may be an injustice done to motorists inadvertently in excess of the opinion expressed by this House, wisely or unwisely, that in future a perfectly innocent man may be held responsible and liable to penalties in court for an act over which he had no control whatsoever. My Amendment is to add certain words in order to try and make quite sure that such a person is protected so far as the insurance of his car is concerned. It is a well known fact that insurance companies in encouraging the careful driver
are in the habit of allowing a reduced premium to those people who have made no claims on their funds under their insurance policy during the past 12 months. One knows quite well that where minor accidents have occurred that are hardly reasonable to take into court there is a principle called the knock for knock principle, under which the insurance company pay out small claims without contesting who is responsible. There have been many cases of difficulty where motorists were unable to get the benefit of the "no claims bonus," to which they were entitled, because of an accident over which they had no control. The suggestion of the Amendment is that where an insurance company is called upon to pay a fee of 12s. 6d. to a medical practitioner for attending an emergency case or to a hospital for doing similar work it shall not be regarded as having any effect on the claim of the policy holder if the injury was caused by the wrongful act of some other person than the holder of the policy, and that the policy holder should be entitled to all the benefits of the "no claim" bonus. One always experiences certain difficulties in framing Amendments, and I hope that if the words of the Amendment are not in accordance with the purpose which I have outlined the Minister will be good enough to consider the matter and have further words inserted in another place to cover the point which I have raised in all sincerity here.

11.45 a.m.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment. It makes it clear that no-claim bonuses which are now allowed by insurance companies shall not be effected by the kind of case with which we are dealing here.

11.46 a.m.

Mr. JANNER: I desire to support the Amendment. It merely provides that a person who has not committed a wrongful act shall not be placed in any difficulty. I cannot see what reasonable answer there is to that proposition. Cases occur in which higher premiums have had to be paid because a person, through no fault of his own, has had to make a claim. I cannot see what moral basis there is for that, or how it can be said to be reasonable. Now that an opportunity is
afforded for dealing with this point I think the Minister of Transport should take advantage of it and gladly and willingly accept the suggestion.

11.47 a.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I have considerable sympathy with a good deal that has been said, but it is a matter which is inapt in a Bill of this kind. There is no statutory control whatever over no-claim bonuses. They have not to be given by any Act of Parliament. It is perfectly open to insurance companies, even if we pass the Amendment, the day after to withdraw all no-claim bonuses or to reduce the percentage of no-claim bonuses. Much as I sympathise with the case, it is not one which ought to be or can be dealt with in an Act of Parliament. I can, however, give the hon. and gallant Member some reassurance in regard to this matter. I cannot give any pledge on behalf of insurance companies as a whole, but I can tell him that I understand that it is not the practice of those with whom I have discussed this matter, and they cover the greater field of insurance, to make a man forfeit his no-claim bonus in respect of an accident where it is clearly shown that it is not his fault.

Captain STRICKLAND: In view of the Minister's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 15.—(Foot-passenger crossings.)

Amendments made: In page 13, line 30, leave out "thereof" and insert "that they propose so to do."

In page 14, line 23, at end, insert:
and for the purposes of a prosecution for a contravention of any of the provisions of a regulation having effect as respects a crossing the crossing shall be deemed to be established and indicated as aforesaid unless the contrary is proved."—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]

CLAUSE 17.—(Restrictions on carriage of persons on bicycles.)

Amendments made: In page 15, line 4, leave out "pedal";

In line 4, after "bicycle" insert "not propelled by mechanical power."—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]

CLAUSE 23.—(Amendment as to use of vehicles on special occasions for the conveyance of private parties.)

11.50 a.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I beg to move, in page 18, line 5, at the end, to insert:
(f) the holder of the public service vehicle licence in respect of the vehicle must, within the prescribed time, make or cause to be made a record containing the prescribed particulars in relation to the matters referred to in the foregoing conditions and otherwise in relation to the journey, so however that the regulations shall not require particulars of fares or prices to be recorded; and
(g) the driver of the vehicle must carry a work ticket containing such particulars as may be prescribed for the purpose of enabling the record of the journey made under the last foregoing paragraph to be traced and identified.
(2) The driver of a vehicle shall, on demand by a police constable in uniform, or by a person authorised by any traffic commissioners, on production if so required of that person's authority, produce a work ticket carried by him under this section for inspection by the constable or person authorised, and if the driver fails so to do he shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) The person by whom a record is required by this section to be made shall preserve it for a period of six months from the date on which it is made, and shall, if required so to do at any time during that period, produce it for inspection by any person authorised by any traffic commissioners, on production if so required of that person's authority, and if he fails so to do he shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) If, with intent to deceive, any person alters an entry in a record made under this section he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and shall be liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years;
(b) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding four months or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to both such imprisonment and fine."
This is to fulfil a pledge given by my hon. Friend in Committee. The purpose of the record is to enable the Traffic Commissioners to satisfy themselves that a journey purported to be made by a private car comes within the conditions which are set out in the Amendment. This condition makes no reference to the amount of fares paid by individual passengers or the charge made for the vehicle. In order to allay the fears expressed by the industry this Amendment
specifically provides that no declaration of fares will be required by the Minister.

Mr. TURTON: While thanking the Minister of Transport for the way in which he met an Amendment I moved earlier, I must at the same time express my regret that he has not included the amount of the charge in respect of the vehicle. There is no question of this being shown to anybody but by the Traffic Commissioners. In my view it will be unfortunate if the record does not include the charge for the vehicle, because it would prevent the serious undercutting which goes on by private vehicles against the ordinary regular carriers of passenger traffic. I fear that it will not be altered in another place, but still I express my thanks to the Minister for the extent to which he has met my point and regret that he has not gone further.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 28.—(Licences of drivers of heavy goods vehicles.)

11.52 a.m.

Captain STRICKLAND: I beg to move, in page 20, line 2, to leave out "vehicles" and to insert:
heavy goods vehicles as defined in this section.
The purpose of this Amendment is to draw a distinction between the heavy articulated vehicle, and to limit the application of the Clause requiring a special licence for drivers of heavy vehicles. As the Clause stands the provisions with regard to special drivers' licences apply to all classes of articulated vehicles. There are many such vehicles in ordinary use with a weight of considerably less than 2½ tons, and they are capable of being driven as easily and as safely as any other design of vehicle of the same weight on four or six wheels. This point was raised in Committee. The Minister then objected to the form of the Amendment, and, the present Amendment has been re-drafted in order to meet his objection.

11.54 a.m.

Mr. JANNER: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. and gallant Member is mistaken when he says that in Committee I object to the form of this Amendment. I objected to the principle,
and I still object to it. The object of the Amendment is to treat as light and heavy goods vehicles that particular class of vehicle which is commonly known as the mechanical horse. It has a light chassis, which itself would come within the light vehicle class, but it is capable of having superimposed upon it a trailer of great weight. I have seen one which is designed to draw a thousand gallons tank. It is clear that a combined vehicle of that nature comes within the category of heavy goods vehicles which requires all the skill, perhaps more, which an ordinary heavy goods vehicle requires on the part of the driver. In those circumstances I see no reason to differentiate between the driving test which would have to be passed by the driver of a heavy vehicle and the driver of this vehicle.

Captain STRICKLAND: Does the Minister make no difference at all between the light articulated vehicle with an unladen weight of 2½ tons and such a vehicle as he is foreshadowing to the House—a large oil tanker? I have not that type in my mind at all.

Mr. STANLEY: I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend has succeeded in making his point quite plain. We can discuss the matter with him between now and another place, but it must be clear that I do not accept any Amendment which would enable vehicles of the categories to which I have referred to be treated as light vehicles.

Captain STRICKLAND: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.57 a.m.

Mr. JANNER: I beg to move, in page 20, line 6, to leave out from "test" to the end of the Sub-section.
In considering this Clause it should be remembered that the system of special licences will create an obstacle in the way of an unemployed man getting suitable employment as the driver of a heavy goods vehicle. I have here an illustration from a very important source, the Secretary of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, which shows how this kind of legislation will affect an applicant for a licence to drive a public passenger service vehicle. He writes that a case has just come to his notice of an unemployed man who for 18 years
has held an unendorsed driving licence and has driven every conceivable kind of heavy vehicle. On application to the Metropolitan Police the man had been instructed as follows: That he has to produce his driving licence, costing 5s.; a medical certificate, costing 8s.; he has to make a deposit of 3s. 6d., and 1s. for the licence, with 2s. 6d. for the badge; and in addition he has to produce a vehicle costing over £1,000 to enable him to be tested as a driver. That is all in the terms of the Road Traffic Act of 1930, and the regulations which follow upon that. It appears now that this Bill is going to repeat the same idea with regard to goods vehicles.
I think the House will appreciate how great the difficulty in this regard will be. We know that in some cases the owners are good enough to lend vehicles for a test, but we can quite understand that most of them would be very reluctant indeed to lend for the first test the use of a vehicle; and of course it is important to realise that no person can get employment as such a driver unless he has a licence. It may be argued that in the omnibus industry it is comparatively easy for an intending employé to be provided with an omnibus for the purpose of the test, but the omnibus industry is obviously much more closed, in the sense of employment, than is the goods vehicle industry, in which there are many small owners. It is quite possible, of course, that the person who is going to employ a man might be sufficiently interested in him to lend him his vehicle for the purposes of a test, but I think that most people will be very reluctant indeed to let their vehicles out for the purpose and the reasons must be obvious. I ask the Minister not to place additional difficulties in the way of those who are earnestly seeking employment.

12 n.

Mr. T. SMITH: I beg to second the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: If this Amendment were accepted it would mean that the licensing authorities would have to keep a variety of vehicles for testing purposes, to enable them to test the merits of applicants for licences. That is obviously not a practicable proposition.
The hon. Member really gave an answer to his own question by suggesting that employers who are about to take on a man would supply vehicles for testing purposes. I know the hon. Member suggested that few employers would do that, but surely if an employer wished to take on a man to drive a vehicle it would be reasonable for him to lend a vehicle for the purpose of the test. Anyway, I think that that would be a solution of the problem, and I cannot possibly accept the Amendment.

Mr. JANNER: Does the Parliamentary Secretary suggest that private individuals should take the risk of having their cars disturbed whereas the public funds are available to do it in cases of this description? This test is for the purpose of protection, and this is a public duty, not a private one. Would the hon. Gentleman answer my point as to the difficulty men will have in obtaining employment?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am supposing that if a man is anxious to drive a vehicle of this description and he gets someone willing to employ him, the employer would be sufficiently interested to supply him with a vehicle for the purpose of a test.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 30.—(Provisions as to proceedings.)

Amendments made: In page 22, line 35, leave out "charged with," and insert "prosecuted for."

In line 38, leave out "with," and insert "for."

In page 23, line 2, leave out from "driving)" to "and," in line 9, and insert:
or section fifteen of the principal Act (which relates to driving when under the influence of drink or drugs) then, if at the time of the alleged offence he is the holder of a licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under Part I of the principal Act, he shall either cause it to be delivered to the clerk of the court not later than the day before the date appointed for the hearing, or send it by registered letter duly addressed to the clerk and posted at such a time that in the ordinary course of post it would be delivered not later than that day or have it with him at the hearing.

In line 11, leave from "If," to "shall," in line 12, and insert:
default is made in the production of a licence pursuant to a requirement under the last foregoing sub-section, the holder.

In line 13, after "suspended," insert "from the time of the requirement."

In line 15, at the beginning, insert:
The provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of this section shall have effect, in the case of licences to which they apply, in substitution for the provisions of.

In line 16, leave out "shall cease to have effect."—[Mr. Stanley.]

CLAUSE 35.—(Application to Scotland.)

Amendments made: In page 25, line 26, after "Sub-section," insert "(7) of section one, sub-section."

In line 26, after "fifteen," insert:
and the new sub-section directed by subsection (2) of section nineteen to be inserted in section fifty-nine of the principal Act."—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Limits of Speed.)

12.5 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I beg to move, in page 27, line 34, to leave out from "cars," to "if," in line 37.
This Amendment raises a simple question. It refers to an anomaly with regard to the speed limits on heavy vehicles. As the Minister knows, if a heavy motor-car chassis has a motor omnibus body put upon it, whereby it can carry up to 70 people, it is allowed to go at 30 miles an hour, whereas identically the same chassis, without an omnibus body and not carrying those people, would only be allowed to go at 20 miles an hour. It is not necessary to elaborate the absurdity of that position. It seems ridiculous that when a vehicle is carrying 70 people it should be allowed to go at 30 miles an hour and only allowed to go at 20 miles an hour when it is not carrying that load of people.

12.6 p.m.

Captain STRICKLAND: I beg to second the Amendment.
It must be obvious that if there are two vehicles travelling on the road together both of exactly equal unladen weight and with exactly equal capacity as to direction and driving, and one is allowed to travel at 20 miles an hour while the other is allowed to travel at 30 miles an hour, that there is an anomaly as between the two cases. The raising of the limit for these vehicles from 20 to 30 miles would have the effect of preventing
crowding on our roads. A vehicle travelling at 30 miles an hour must overtake and pass a vehicle of exactly the same type which is travelling only at 20 miles an hour and I think it would be wise to provide that as both are of the same weight they should be allowed to travel at the same pace.

12.7 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: My hon. and gallant Friend has raised an interesting point and there may well be an anomaly somewhere but I am sure he realises that this actual Amendment goes far beyond any case of that description because it would give a maximum speed of 30 miles an hour to all classes of heavy motor cars irrespective of their unladen weight, their laden weight, their age or their equipment. Whatever case there might be for any alteration in respect of some of the most modern types of heavy goods vehicles—and representations have been made to me in that respect—I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend would like to see all heavy motor vehicles going at 30 miles an hour. My hon. and gallant Friend has spoken to us on this matter from his great knowledge of the manufacturing side of the industry, but I would ask him to east his mind back to the previous occasions in these Debates when he has spoken from his equally great knowledge as a road user. I am sure that in his capacity of a road user, the last thing he would like to see would be heavy vehicles up to 9 or 10 tons dead weight hurtling along the roads at 30 miles an hour. I would remind the House that the speed limit which we are now discussing is a speed limit imposed under the Act of 1930, and that under that Act I have power to vary this schedule of speed limits by regulations which, of course, would have to be submitted to the House. I promise to keep an eye on the development of the modern type of commercial vehicle and not to impose on them any further restriction than I believe to be necessary in the interests of public safety.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

12.10 p.m.

Captain STRICKLAND: I beg to move, in page 28, line 19, at the end, to insert "otherwise than as aforesaid."
It will be noticed that on the Order Paper there are several Amendments in my name to this Schedule. The effective
Amendment is that which comes next on the Paper and which proposes to insert following paragraphs:
if the trailer is attached to the drawing vehicle by partial superimposition in such manner as to cause a substantial part of the weight to be borne by the drawing vehicle—

(a) in the case of motor cars if all the wheels of the drawing vehicle and the trailer are fitted with pneumatic tyres;
(b) in the case of motor cars if all the wheels of the drawing vehicle and the trailer are not fitted with pneumatic tyres but are fitted with soft or elastic tyres;
(c) in all cases of heavy motor cars if all the wheels of the vehicle and the trailer are fitted with pneumatic tyres or soft or elastic tyres;
(d) in any other case."
The other Amendments are consequential. The object of these Amendments is to permit the light articulated vehicle on pneumatic tyres to travel at 30 miles an hour instead of 20 miles an hour, as proposed in the Schedule. There seems to be some doubt in the minds of some hon. Members who are, perhaps, not intimately connected with road transport as to what is an articulated vehicle. It is entirely distinct from that type of vehicle which draws a trailer behind it. These light articulated vehicles are manufactured for the purpose of enabling loads to be easily controlled and turned without the necessity of negotiating a trailer following upon the engine part of the vehicle. The articulated vehicle consists of a cab in front which contains the motor part and, super-imposed on that cab, the vehicle which carries the goods. Goods cannot be carried in the motor part and the goods-carrying part cannot be used apart from the motor.
These light vehicles are in considerable use for lighter loads. They are not vehicles which form a great encumbrance on the roads like some of the heavier vehicles. Yet you can have a non-articulated vehicle travelling at 30 miles an hour whereas an articulated vehicle of the same unladen weight comes under the restriction of 20 miles an hour. Under these Amendments a higher speed would be permitted only in the case of the light articulated vehicle, that is a motor car weighing not more than 2½ tons unladen, with a trailer attached so that the substantial part of the weight is borne by the drawing vehicle. These vehicles are easily controlled and can be
driven with greater safety than the non-articulated trailer drawing vehicle. A further proposal in the Amendment is that the higher speed of 30 miles an hour should be permitted only in the case of vehicles of this lighter class which are fitted with pneumatic tyres. The provision in paragraph 2 (a) of the Schedule would still apply to light vehicles fitted with solid rubber tyres.
I cannot help feeling that the case of the articulated vehicle has not received the careful attention which it deserves. This type of vehicle offers the possibility of contracting the length of load on the road. They are wonderful, little "nippy" vehicles, taking light loads about the country under perfect control and perfectly safe. They are, I think, safer than the trailer non-articulated vehicles which can at the present time be driven at 30 miles an hour. I ask the Minister to give his attention to this point. These articulated vehicles are a modern outcome of manufacturing skill in this country, they serve a most useful purpose and they ought to encouraged.
The Minister just now said that in an Amendment which was proposed sufficient differentiation was not made between a light load and a heavy one. The case I am bringing forward is that of light loads not exceeding 2½ tons complete unladen weight, and I suggest that this is a case in which the Minister might very well make a concession, either here or, after consideration, in another place. I urge upon him the necessity of dealing with this matter.

Sir GIFFORD FOX: I beg to second the Amendment.

12.16 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I am not sure that I fully understood my hon. and gallant Friend's point, and perhaps he will take the opportunity of having a discussion with me at some later time. He referred throughout to light articulated vehicles, and to the fact that his Amendment confined the proposed increase in the speed limit merely to light vehicles. I confess that I cannot see at the moment how this limitation to light vehicles can be read into the Amendment. As far as I can see, the effect of the Amendment would be to establish a 30-mile speed limit for a light vehicle with, superimposed upon it a 1,000 gallon tank.
That is a more difficult vehicle to manage on the road than even the heavy motor vehicle, and I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would wish the privilege extended to that type of vehicle. He will, perhaps, take the opportunity, between now and the Bill going to another place, of discussing the matter with me on the more limited lines to which he has directed his speech, although I am not so sure that his Amendment has met the case.

Captain STRICKLAND: May I thank the Minister for his promise to consider this point, which, I am sure, is quite a sound one. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Consequential and minor Amendments.)

12.18 p.m.

Mr. McKEAG: I beg to move, in page 32, line 29, column 2, at the end, to insert:
In sub-section (2) a period of three years shall be substituted for one year.
The object of this Amendment is to increase the period of validity of road service licences to three years. At present the position is most unsatisfactory in that many omnibus operators, who pay thousands of pounds for road service licences, the period of validity of which is only one year, are placed in a somewhat invidious position, as they are only certain of their business for a period of 12 months. The Amendment proposes a very reasonable extension of the licence from one year to three years. It is true that the Minister, in Amendments which he himself has inserted in the Bill, takes power to increase by regulation the period of validity of such types of services as may be specified in regulations. It is not quite clear exactly what types of services the Minister proposes to favour by increasing the period of validity, and I should be grateful to him if, when he is replying, he may be able to give some indication as to which services he proposes to extend the validity. But that does not get rid of the very unsatisfactory position which exists, and I suggest that, if the period of validity is to be extended, it should be extended by the Bill, and not by regulation.
The Minister himself, apparently, agrees as to the undesirability of dealing with
matters of this kind by way of regulation, because in Committee upstairs he said that in matters of controversy Parliament should not evade its responsibility by taking refuge behind powers given to Ministers to make regulations. By putting down this Amendment, therefore, I am only trying to save the Minister from that which he himself condemns. The Minister, no doubt, when replying, will say, as the Parliamentary Secretary said upstairs, that he doubts whether the time is yet ripe for extending the period of validity from one year to three years. There may or may not be something in that argument, but, at any rate, I suggest that the time will unquestionably be ripe either next year or, at any rate, by 1936. By that time a degree of stabilisation will be reached which, in my submission, justifies our now asking Parliament to state a date after which the period of validity of these road service licences shall be three years instead of one year.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I beg to second the Amendment.

12.21 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: As the Bill now stands, the Minister is given power by regulation to extend to three years the validity of road service licences. In Committee upstairs we did not think that the time has arrived when it is safe to have a general system of three-year licences. The Commissioners must have more control over the road services for the time being. We quite appreciate that when things are more settled down, and when the whole system of transport in this country is better arranged, it will be desirable to lengthen the period of these road service licences, but this Amendment, we think, is rather premature, and, therefore, we are unwilling to accept it for the reasons I have stated.

Mr. McKEAG: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that the time will be ripe by 1st January, 1936?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I never venture to make a prophecy.

Amendment negatived.

12.23 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I do not intend to detain the House for very many minutes. It has never been my practice to speak at any length, for I am one of those who believe in short speeches. I think, however, in respect of a Bill of this kind, which so seriously affects all of us in so many ways, it is right and proper that the House should realise to what extent the Bill has been amended since it was first introduced. I think, from the fact that the important Amendments which have been made in the Bill have been so few, it is fair to say that both the Committee and the House approve of the principles of the Bill. It is only natural, of course, that Clause 1, which imposes a speed limit in built-up areas, should have aroused the most controversy. It occupied the attention of the Committee for seven out of the 14 days of our sittings. It was impossible to make the extreme partisans on either side come to terms, and we saw in the House last night that there are still extremists who believe that any form of speed limit is wholly wrong, while there is another section of opinion which almost believes that motor cars should not be allowed on the roads. The hon. Member for West Willesden (Mrs. Tate) considers that our Bill is so preposterous that all motorists should take to flying, and I only wish some "speed merchants" would take her advice.
The House must remember that this Bill as a whole represents a series of experiments, all of which are intended to reduce the present casualty list on the roads. The 30 miles per hour speed limit in built up areas was decided upon because all the facts prove that it is in those areas that the great proportion of casualties occur. It may be argued, and fairly argued, that with skilled and careful drivers speed in itself is not a main cause of accidents; it is yet undeniable that excessive speed must contribute to the dangers of the roads, especially in the case of the less skilful drivers. Nevertheless, it may well be—and I hope profoundly that it will be so—that the automatic check to speed caused by the institution of marked crossing places for pedestrians, by a general improvement in the standard of driving, by a better attention to warning signs, and by a greater development in road sense and in road manners on the part of all users
of the road may ultimately do away entirely with the need of any limitation of speed.
I remarked very carefully what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) yesterday, when he said that under the existing law we are perfectly able to institute a speed limit in places where we think it necessary. My own view is that if that were the general practice and these speed limits differed, as they might, in different places, it would be much more awkward for the motorists than a general speed limit being established as we propose in this Bill. We fell in with the wishes of the Committee upstairs and made certain Amendments to our speed limit proposals which, I think, have materially improved them for motorists. In the first place, to mark the experimental character of the whole of our proposals, we accepted an Amendment which limits the speed limit for a definite period of time. It will come automatically to a close at the end of December, 1939, unless Parliament otherwise decides. We also took off the speed limit between the hours of 12 midnight and five o'clock in the morning, because it is obvious from statistics that accidents very nearly take place at that time of the day. We also accepted an amendment in the Committee upstairs to enable the Minister to alter the limits of speed or the hours of the enforcement of the speed limit, subject, of course, to an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
It was natural, I suppose, that our definition of a built-up area should cause a good deal of criticism, but it is interesting to remark that, having considered various other proposals, the Committee came back to the conclusion that "a system of street lighting" offered the best criterion of a built-up area. We agreed, however, to an Amendment which excluded from such a system cases where there are a few scattered lights placed at intervals more than 200 yards apart. I am quite certain in my own mind that those who are pressing the views of motorists in this House make a mistake when they underrate so severely the intelligence of the average user of a motor car. I do not believe there will be any difficulty in the ordinary motorist deciding what is or is not a built-up area under the terms of the Bill as it now stands.
There was a good deal of discussion upstairs on the provisions of Part II of the Bill, regarding insurance against third party risks. It was made abundantly clear that the Committee as a whole were anxious to ensure that any liability for compensation of injured third parties should not be avoided on merely technical grounds. The Bill as we presented it provided specifically against invalidation on the ground that the vehicle had not been maintained in a particular condition, but the Committee clearly felt that far more than this was desirable, and so Clause 9 as it now stands secures that an injured party shall not be deprived of compensation just because the vehicle was being used outside a particular area or outside particular hours or because it was carrying a particular kind of goods.
We added a new Clause upstairs which makes provision for a payment of 12s. 6d., together with certain mileage charges, to medical practitioners who are called upon to give emergency treatment to sufferers in motor accidents, and that irrespective entirely of any question of negligence on the part of the person using the vehicle. The House will realise that this imposition of a liability irrespective of any presumption of negligence introduces a principle at variance with the general law, but after weighing in the balance any possible injustice which might be involved upon the motorist and any possible injustice which might be caused to a practitioner in getting nothing for his services, the Committee felt justified in inserting this provision in the Bill. They did so, however, on the understanding that it should not be taken as a precedent for the introduction of a like principle into other cases, and such cases might be numerous.
Then there are Clauses which were introduced upstairs relating to public service vehicles, designed to simplify machinery alike in the interests of the operators and of the Traffic Commissioners and passed as a result of representations made during the passage of the, Bill. A new Clause has been added which we consider should remedy defects in the drafting of the Act of 1930 which were brought to notice recently in the courts. A further Clause has been inserted, Clause 24, which is designed to prevent the creation of alleged "clubs" for the purpose of running road services outside
the jurisdiction of the Traffic Commissioners and in unfair competition with licensed operators. By agreement between the various interests concerned, new and satisfactory arrangements have been made to provide compensation for persons employed in connection with transport services and local authorities who may suffer loss by virtue of working transport services by local authorities, and other transport undertakers. These Amendments were necessary and are acceptable to all concerned. I think I have now brought to the notice of the House all the main Amendments which have been made in the Bill.
I should like, in conclusion, to emphasise once again the experimental character of this Measure. It is an honest and sincere attempt on the part of the Government to do something effective to reduce the toll of accidents on the roads. There is, as I have already stated, a marked difference of opinion as to how far speed is a contributory cause of accidents. I think, however, it is clearly established that the majority of fatal accidents are due to human failings rather than to road and vehicular defects. The greater number of these accidents take place in daylight when the weather is clear and there is normal visibility, on straight roads or on bends where there is a good sight line, or on roads where there is only slight traffic; in other words, at hours of the day when and on roads on which, the conditions allow for a high rate of speed. Human errors of judgment there will always be so long as human beings exist, but I am convinced that the results of a momentary error of judgment may be less serious if the motorist is travelling at a speed which gives him another moment of time in which to correct any such error. I hope and believe that the general standard of driving and good manners on our roads will improve and that the "speed merchant" may take to the air. I believe, too, that there will be a greater development of road sense among pedestrians. I should like my noble Friend the President of the Board of Education to make a study of the Highway Code compulsory in every school in this country but until such time comes, and so long as conditions on the road are what they are no Government would be doing their duty by the people of this country unless they did all in their power to make every
effort to bring about a better state of things on the road.

12.37 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: It do not think it will be right for this Bill to receive the Third Reading without our paying a tribute to the Minister who conducted it through Committee upstairs over a long period. We have tried to knock him about as much as we could, and we succeeded sometimes in touching vital parts, but he has emerged unscathed ready for some other piece of legislation. I would like also to pay a tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary, because I have been one and I know the unenviable position of a Parliamentary Secretary upstairs. He has to know about every Amendment and make himself acquainted with all the briefs, but he speaks on only one in a hundred, and then on one with which the Minister does not want to deal because it is unpleasant. It is no use pretending that I like the Bill, and all I can say to the Minister from the point of view of the motorist is that we will do our best to make it a success. The success of the Measure, however, is very much dependent on how the executive of the country interpret it. It is not entirely in the hands of my hon. Friend, but with good will on both sides it might be a useful Measure. We have to understand that this is not legislation for motor cars for all time. It is, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, an experimental Measure. Nothing wants harder thought and more study than the question of traffic and the saving of life, and there will have to be a good deal more of it before we get a satisfactory and stable highway code.
It is interesting to see that the greater mobility given to us by the motor car has, by the increasing numbers on the roads, defeated itself. That is the sort of thing that so often occurs. I agree with an hon. Friend who said that this Bill is really the charter for private flying, because if anyone is in a hurry at present they must go from place to place by air. I look upon motoring as the pleasantest method of locomotion and flying as the dullest, but if you want to get about quickly you must take to the air. I cannot help reminding the Minister that while the Minister of Transport is putting
repressive legislation upon the motorist repressive legislation by the Air Ministry is intolerable. Whereas there were only 700 people flying private machines 2½ years ago, such is the legislation with regard to air matters, that in 2½ years that has grown by only 16 machines. There is not a great encouragement to us to go by air, and I hope that my hon. Friend, as he is interested in transport in general and as the Air Ministry is really a military machine, will-try and get control over private flying. When he gets it, I hope he will free it and not put silly repressive measures on it like the Air Ministry are doing in trying to prevent you killing yourself. After all, it is a sacred right that you can kill yourself if you like so long as you do not commit suicide.

Mr. STANLEY: It is quite right that you are at liberty to kill yourself, but if you fail you will be sent to prison.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: It is legal to take a risk with your own life if you are not deliberately trying to commit suicide. Of all grandmotherly institutions, I think the Air Ministry is the worst, and we must not let the Ministry of Transport go along the same lines. I hope this Measure will be a success. I am afraid the Minister of Transport is going to play a prominent part in legislation for many years, because we are not at the end of this problem yet. If by our deliberations we have saved lives, whether we like the means or not, we have not wasted our time.

12.43 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: I would like to follow the hon. and gallant Member in complimenting the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary on the way they have piloted through this Bill. It is a case of the Minister having had to be saved from his own friends. The opposition to the Bill has certainly not come from the Labour party but from the Minister's own side. Although there is a distinct difference of opinion with regard to the value of a speed limit, I think the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) and the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) have been perfectly sincere in their attitude. They believe that the speed limit will tend to make road
usage more dangerous. I cannot agree with that point of view. During the discussions last night, the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey said this Bill had been brought in purely because of sentiment; there had been a Press campaign and a sentiment created, and the Minister had been compelled by outside sources to do something. There is a deeper reason than that. When we remember that last year there were 7,134 persons killed on the roads, the House will agree that something had to be done. Out of that number 3,517 were pedestrians, 1,324 were pedal cyclists, and 1,308 motor cyclists, and the Minister was bound to deal with a situation like that.
I do not intend to argue for or against the speed limit except to hope that it works out as the Minister intends that it should. Some of those who have opposed the speed limit have made exaggerated statements. I have a circular which was sent to all Members which says:
It cannot be disputed that a large proportion of the accidents in which motor vehicles are involved are not due to any fault of the motor driver at all, but are the result of the carelessness or negligence of other road users.
I am not a motorist. The opinion of motorists has been amply put in this House, but I think road users apart from motorists certainly have rights on the road as well as duties, and whilst it needs the co-operation of all to insure safety I think motorists have rather exaggerated the situation. Anyone who cares to read this Report of the Ministry of Transport will see that it disproves the argument that if the figures it contains had been published before the introduction of the Bill there would have been no Bill. It is a most interesting document. I conclude my remarks on this point by saying that we hope the Bill will accomplish what the Minister intends that it should. But there are other matters in the Bill. There is the question of cyclists. The hon. Lady the Member for West Willesden (Mrs. Tate) moved an Amendment which makes it perfectly legal for a cycle made for two to run on the road, but if two persons ride one cycle it will be illegal. When the Minister is making his Regulations one will have to deal with the efficient brakes on bicycles and things of that character. Personally, I have always regarded it as
very dangerous for anyone to ride a bicycle with his hands off the handlebar.

Mrs. TATE: I think the hon. Member is under some misapprehension. I think I am right in saying that the only Amendment I moved dealing with bicycles was one to insist on bicycles carrying rear lights, and the other one was that more than two bicycles should not travel abreast on the highway at the same time.

Mr. SMITH: I am sorry if I was paying the hon. Lady a compliment she did not deserve, but I really thought her name was attached to the Amendment to which I referred. Anyhow, that does not matter. Cyclists have rights, and as an old cyclist myself I hope they will keep those rights, while at the same time observing the rules and regulations. There is a provision in the Bill dealing with clubs. There have been certain developments in connection with clubs during the last two or three years which clearly aimed at evading road traffic legislation. The Minister will remember that in Committee I brought to his notice the position at a certain colliery where the workmen have combined for the purpose of conveying themselves between the pit and their homes. They are of the opinion that Clause 24 will do them some injury. While I agree that Clause 24 is absolutely essential, I want the Minister to give the point I raised in Committee consideration, in order that those working at this particular pit will not be at a serious disadvantage compared with miners elsewhere. Apart from these considerations we on these benches propose to support the Third Reading of this Bill.

12.49 p.m.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I would like to join in paying a tribute to the Minister for the way in which he has conducted the proceedings on this Bill, though I admit that I approach the Third Reading of it with a certain sense of gloom. Some 20 people are being killed and some 600 injured on our roads daily, and we had hoped that this one big Measure of legislation would help materially to lessen the number of accidents, but I am very doubtful whether it will succeed in reducing them by more than 10 per cent. That is a most depressing thought, because it means that deaths will still be at the rate of some 7,000 a year. If we accept this Bill whole-heartedly it means that we are
accepting it as a fact that we have exhausted the possibilities of curing road accidents by reasonable legislation. While I am not prepared to go quite so far as that, after attending every sitting of the Committee I am convinced that there is no short cut towards a cure of these accidents. As to the suggestion that the safety provisions of the Bill have been whittled away by concessions in Committee, I must admit that I have been in favour of some concessions, and especially the lifting of the speed limit between the hours of midnight and 5 a.m., because apart from the fact that it is largely unnecessary then, it would have been the worst type of legislation, as being a provision that could not be enforced and would inevitably be ignored.
I will not detain the House by returning to the speed limit, because it was discussed adequately last night, except to say that I hope that motorists and the police will not be brought into conflict again by the unnecessary use of police traps on straight stretches of road. I welcome the assurance of the Minister last night, and of the Home Secretary in Committee that the Metropolitan Police, for their part, will concentrate in checking dangerous driving rather than on this. I wonder if that assurance could be extended as regards the police in other parts of England and Wales, and the police in Scotland? Will the Minister consider issuing a circular to the police on the subject? In this House we are in the position of being able to make laws but we cannot ensure their being carried out in the way we want. That has been shown clearly by the fact that in his Report this year the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police remarked that the average fine for dangerous driving was only £4 Vs. I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland about the fines for dangerous driving in Scotland. Last year there were 244 convictions, and in only 38 of those cases was a fine of more than 10 guineas imposed. In the remaining 206 cases the fine was less. That means that in four cases out of five a man can drive to the danger of the public without risking a fine of more than 10 guineas, and that it a regrettable fact. For this reason one of the principal things I welcome in the Bill is the provision for the endorsement and suspension of licences.
I do not want to be pessimistic in this matter, because I do hope that this Bill may suffice having regard to the fact that other conditions will improve. It is reasonable to expect that in this mechanical age people will develop a sixth sense of self-preservation, and, also, we may help the situation by an improvement in road construction, in road surfaces, corners and lighting. I only mention those things in order to urge the Minister not to regard his duties in the matter of securing safety as being ended with this Bill; but it is a step in the right direction.

12.53 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN: It is fitting that one private Member who was not on the Committee, and who looks on this subject from the point of view of the amateur, and who is also a car driver of many years' experience, should welcome this Bill and congratulate the Minister on its passage. He is a master of large and complicated Measures. I do not think he feels that it is worth his while to introduce a Bill unless it has some 50 Clauses and half-a-dozen Schedules, and this is hardly up to his normal standard. When we come to look at the Statute Book at the end of this Parliament we shall find, I believe, that he can claim a larger acreage than any other Minister.

Mr. STANLEY: Barren acreage?

Mr. DENMAN: No, most fertile. All his Bills are, I believe, beneficial. I would like to make one plea to him, which is that he should consider whether it would be possible to consolidate these Measures within a reasonable time, or at least to print the law in the form in which it now exists—to issue some book which will show the whole law on the subject and not this particular Statute only. Some of us will have to administer this law, even if we do not like its being administered upon us, and it would certainly help if we could have the law in some consolidated form. Some years ago the Board of Education printed the education law as it then stood and it was a great convenience to those who had to work on that subject. As an old car driver, I welcome this Bill.

Mr. HALES: An old car?

Mr. DENMAN: Yes, an old car driver. One of my early cars was a Daimler which
was chain driven, and that I think indicates the age of my driving. We welcome this kind of Bill because we must make experiments in safety. There is no certain method of making the road safe, and this is an experiment. We shall know in a few years what has been the measure of our success. An hon. Member has said that this Bill would compel him to take to the air. From his speech I inferred that it might drive him to revert to the most exciting of all forms of transport, and that is going about on foot. If it had that effect, I do not think that it would do him any very great harm. I hope that the Bill will make the lot of the pedestrians less alarming and give them security and more pleasure on the roads, on which they have an equal title with the motorists.
In regard to the provision as to insurance, I may say that I have for many years been interested in issuing policies for insurance to motorists. All who are engaged in that profession lament the interference with freedom of contract between insurer and insured. It has been obvious that the State would have to step in, and do so increasingly, in order to protect the third party. I welcome the provision of the Bill in that matter, but I am quite sure that the process must go a good deal further. The Irish Free State is already ahead of us. I look forward to the time when each car must have not only a licence, but, in relation to itself and not in relation to its owner, a policy which will give an assured safeguard to a third party. Whether the car be stolen and whatever may happen to the owner, there will be a policy on the car in the event of damage. I believe that to be possible without any great increase in premium.

12.58 p.m.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: As an old racing cyclist, I want to present my thanks to the Minister on behalf of my own neglected section of the community. There are 10,000,000 of us in this country and, amid the aristocratic motorists, if it had not been for the splendid offices of the Minister, we might not have had very much consideration. I present our thanks for what he has done for the plain, everyday humble cyclist. There are certain weaknesses in the Bill and penalising provisions in regard to the bicyclist. For
example, if the working man desires to take his child out for a run on Saturday afternoon and has made a little basket which is not quite as strong or as adaptable or suitable as a magistrate thinks it ought to be, he lays himself open to a fine of £20. I hope that the Minister will see that such a cyclist gets equity and justice in that respect. The hon. Member for West Willesden (Mrs. Tate) has given some little attention to the question as to how many of us are to ride abreast. She said this morning that she has nothing wicked in her mind as to how we shall ride. I hope that the idea that two are company and three are none will not be adopted in respect of bicycles. It is possible for three persons to ride abreast without squabbling, and when a lady is in the middle that is all the better, as even sedate Members here will agree. As the only racing cyclist—in a past decade—in the House, I voice our appreciation of the splendid work the Minister has done, and we hope he will see that we get a fair show in the rules and regulations with the aristocratic motorist as to the reflector or any other matter as well as with other road users who have special considerations that we cyclists do not always receive. We ask the Minister to bear us in mind and not fine us too heavily, even though our bicycles are not as efficient as all magistrates think they ought to be.

1.1 p.m.

Mrs. TATE: I expressed the great apprehension with which I regard the provisions of this Bill briefly and forcibly in Committee, and I therefore do not wish to detain the House now. I join with other Members in congratulating the Minister. I am sure he must have looked forward to this day and must be thankful that it has at last been safely reached. Although I regard this as a wrong experiment, no one hopes more sincerely than I that I shall be proved to be wrong, and that it will do what I know the Minister is anxious that it should do, contribute to the lessening of the terrible loss of life on the roads. I hope that the Ministry will regard this as an experimental Measure and will continue to keep their minds open as to the real causes of accidents on the roads. If this experiment should not prove to be the right one, I hope that they will be able to come forward with some suggestion which I should regard as more
progressive. I regret the provision in Clause 13 which makes the user of a car liable for payment to doctors for emergency treatment, whether or no the motorist had in any way been responsible for the accident. We all sympathise with the unfortunate position of doctors who are not able to collect their fees, but I do not believe that we have done the right thing in passing a law which is definitely unjust in that it provides that someone who is in no way responsible shall be penalised.
I also hope that special regard will be given by the Ministry to Clause 16 which says that bicycles must carry rear red reflectors and a white patch. I very much regret that they are not to carry rear lamps. If at the end of the year we have found that this provision is not satisfactory, I hope that rear lamps will be introduced. The hon. Member for West Leyton (Sir W. Sugden) said I wished to prevent more than two bicyclists riding abreast on the highway. That is true, not because I want to spoil their pleasure but because I want to ensure that a sufficient number of them shall be left among us. I was only thinking of their safety. In regard to the Highway Code, I hope that when it has been revised the Minister will do all that he can to see that the public, whether motoring or pedestrian, shall have a real knowledge of it, and that those who speak for the pedestrians will ensure that the Code is brought to the notice of pedestrians so that pedestrians shall realise their duty in regard to the road.

1.5 p.m.

Mr. McKEAG: A few moments ago an appeal was made that at some early date the Ministry of Transport should endeavour to codify the law relating to road traffic in its various forms, and I would like to endorse that request. I speak somewhat feelingly on this subject. As one who is often called upon to advise on these matters, I realise only too well the difficulties that are created by the plethora of statutes and regulations which are issued from time to time, and I believe that codification would be a real boon to the motoring public and to those who are called upon to administer the law. Much as one may dislike this Bill, one must pay tribute to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for the skill and dexterity
which they have displayed in piloting the Bill through its various stages, both in Committee upstairs and on the Floor of the House. I say "skill and dexterity" advisedly, because those of us who have had the duty of sitting on more than one Committee under the hon. Gentleman know how very little in fact gives away, and that putting down Amendments is rather like fishing in deep but very empty water. We all, of course, realise and sympathise with the Minister in the difficulties in which he was placed. It was necessary for him to placate the growing public revolt at the massacre on the roads, and, in order to placate that revolt, it was necessary to do something. This Bill constitutes the something. Many of us think that it will not accomplish its avowed object of reducing road accidents, and I do not think it would be unfair criticism to say that the Bill was begotten of anxiety, conceived in confusion, and is now being delivered in apprehension on a Friday. I am sure we are grateful for the twilight sleep afforded by the unassailable majority of the Government. Despite all the efforts that were made in Committee, the Bill seems now destined to be nurtured on regulations and police traps. As the Bill stands, the very vexed question of the definition of a built-up area remains, and henceforth it seems that motorists will be haunted by the bogy of the street lamp; it is interesting to observe that an instrument of light is now to be transformed into an instrument of prosecution. The Parliamentary Secretary, in his speech a few moments ago, suggested that the intelligence of motorists should not be under-rated; but, with respect, I do not think that that is the danger. The danger, to my mind, is that the motoring public will become so exasperated by the thousand and one restrictions and regulations which are being imposed upon them, that they will decline to co-operate with authorities who are constantly pursuing them. If that co-operation breaks down, then the law will be incapable of enforcement, and will be brought into contempt; and I would suggest, with all respect, that if that happens the position will be infinitely worse than it was before the introduction of the Bill.
I hope that my somewhat pessimistic outlook will be proved wrong, and that
this great experiment will indeed be a success. In my view, however, the repressions and restrictions imposed by the Bill will far outweigh any advantages that will accrue, and I do not think that the Bill will result in the saving of life which the Minister quite genuinely anticipates. However, now that the passing of the Bill in inevitable, and now that those of us who have had our objections to it have cited those objections, with very little success I am afraid, I want to take this opportunity of adding my voice to the appeal to all motorists to co-operate in making this experiment the success which is so much to be desired.

1.11 p.m.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: It has been agreed that this Bill should leave us by 1.30, and, before we part with it, I should like, on behalf of my colleagues, to add our thanks to those which have been expressed to the Minister from all quarters of the House, for the way in which he has met us on various matters in connection with the Bill. We have given general support to the Bill from the time when it was introduced, and I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that my hon. Friends in Committee—I did not happen to serve on the Committee myself—were helpful in every possible way. We trust that all that the Minister expects of the Bill will be realised. The appalling loss of human life on our roads must be reduced, as must also the toll of accidents generally. I hope it will not be said of this Bill when it becomes law that it has not been rigidly applied. I think that the success of the speed limit, and of the legislation generally, will depend upon whether it is applied in the way in which it should be applied, especially in the populous areas. I hope it will not be said of the speed limit laid down in the Bill as was said of the speed limit which existed previously, that very little notice was taken of it, and we on this side of the House would press the Minister in this respect. Speaking, not as one who drives a motor car, but as one who often travels in a motor car, I certainly think that a speed limit of 30 miles an hour is adequate in the populous areas of this country. After all, that is a mile every two minutes, and in a large number of industrial areas I doubt very much
whether it would be possible to travel with safety even at 15 or 20 miles an hour. I think that the Minister is to be congratulated upon stubbornly resisting any alteration of the original idea of a speed limit of 30 miles an hour.
As has been said already, the Minister has had a very busy time since he has been at the Ministry of Transport. I know of no Minister who can claim for himself two major Bills of the character of those which the Minister of Transport and the Parliamentary Secretary can claim for themselves in two succeeding Sessions. Whether the hon. Gentleman's stay at the Ministry of Transport be long or short, he will certainly be able to look back upon his period of office at that Department as one which has been as active as that of any of his predecessors. As I have already said, we on these Benches have given general support to the Bill, and, as far as we are concerned, we trust that the expectations of the Minister will be realised, and that there will be a very great reduction in the loss of life on the roads of this country.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I should like to reassure those who are concerned for the virility of the nation and are apt to think of it as degenerating. I should not like them to think that the Debate that we have had to-day in any way represents the way in which we talk to each other in the Committee. The compliments which the hon. Member for Willesden (Mrs. Tate) has showered on us to-day are very different from the manner in which she used to move her Amendments in Committee. Then it was like a road when one of her fast-driving friends had passed, strewn with littered adjectives and a sense of scorching. But I am sure my hon. Friends and I are very grateful for the kind things that have been said to-day and for the real assistance that was given to us in the passage of the Bill even by those who are opposed to some of its provisions. Everyone talked about the Bill as if the Bill were Clause 1. I do not believe there was anyone in the Committee who did not had many things in it with which be was in agreement, even if there were some from which he differed. Even my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) found places where we did something with which he
was quite satisfied. One of the most poignant things I have ever listened to, somewhat reminiscent, no doubt, of the translation of Elijah, was when we heard the hon. and gallant Gentleman saying that in future he was forsaking the roads of the country and taking to the air. I could not help feeling a little sympathy with my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Air.
The House, I am sure, realises the difficulty we are always in when dealing with matters of this sort, because they are matters of opinion, and on these subjects each of us must hold the opinion which we ourselves form. I can no more prove conclusively beforehand that the speed limit is going to reduce accidents than anyone who is opposed to it can prove that it is not. We can only, with the materials that we have available, form each for himself our opinions upon it and act upon those opinions. With this stage this particular provision is beginning to pass from the realm of opinion into the realm of fact. The future will disclose much more certainly than any arguments that we have had in the House which of the two opinions is right. But I am sure, and indeed it has been echoed from every quarter of the House, that even those who most strongly disapprove of the speed limit, even those who question most strongly the possibility of its success, are combined in a real desire that they may prove to be wrong, because proving them wrong will mean that lives have been saved upon the roads. I welcome the assurance of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey, who is such a well-known popular figure in the motoring world, that, much as many motorists may object to the provisions of the Clause, when it becomes an Act of Parliament, when it has received the imprint of the approval of the House, they will do their best to make it a success and will be only too glad if that success arrives.
I recognise, too, that the responsibility of the Ministry and the Government as a whole does not cease with the passage of the Bill. The enforcement of the Clause has just as much importance in relation to its ultimate success as the terms of the Clause itself. Bad enforcement, lazy enforcement, unfair enforcement, may do much to destroy any value of the Clause and,
if the motorist will accept on his side his responsibility for trying to make this experiment a success, I on my side will not shirk my share. Not only Clause 1, not only the rest of the Bill, but any Measure that this House has taken or will take to deal with the problem of safety upon the roads must be experimental and must be subject to possible alteration. It is no good thinking we are going to legislate for all time to deal with a problem which is changing almost from day to day. I hope that no one standing in my place will ever allow opinions that he has previously expressed, arguments that he has previously advanced or actions that he has previously taken to stand in the way of the honest admission of a mistake and an honest desire to reverse an old line that has proved wrong and take a new line which he thinks may be right.
In a Third Reading speech we are not allowed to discuss what is not in the Bill. It is a great pity in this case, because, when you are dealing with accident problems, perhaps the most important things are not in the Bill and cannot be in any Bill. I should not like the Debate to give the impression that the Clauses of the Bill are the only contribution that the Ministry, of which I am at the head, is trying to make to the problem of accidents on the roads. Gigantic fields lie outside statutory provisions. There is the whole question of road construction from the point of view of safety. There are the many experiments which I have indeed started, such as the traffic lines on the big by-passes. All those may, each in their way, have just as much importance on this problem as any provision in the Bill. Finally, when you pass beyond the action of the Government and of the House of Commons you come to the real, ultimate, only solution of the problem, and that is the co-operation, good will and understanding of all the users of the road. I have tried in the last few months to get the co-operation of all in a campaign of propaganda wider and larger than has ever been undertaken before. By the Press, by the films, and by the broadcast I have tried to bring home from every different aspect the responsibility that rests upon all users of the road.
Some, I know, of those who have so willingly co-operated with me, and are so willingly giving their time and energy in carrying out that campaign, are disappointed with its progress and are beginning
to ask whether it is worth continuing that work. Week by week they see in the papers the toll of accidents mounting. I do not feel that anyone can express any satisfaction at an accident rate approaching this being the normal weekly feature of our national life. But there is this grain of comfort which I can give them. There is this encouragement for them to continue their work. Up to now we have almost had to take as a matter of course the fact that the fatal accidents increased in ratio to the number of cars upon the road. It has followed almost axiomatically. I am glad to say that since this campaign started ill April the figures of fatal accidents have kept fairly level with the fatal accidents last year, although there are something like 100,000 more cars on the road. That is enough to show that the efforts of these people have not been wasted and should be continued. But I am not prepared to be driven to the position where I have to accept it as a fact that fatal accidents depend on the number of cars upon the road, that every so many cars means so many more deaths, that everything that we do and that the Government have done in the last few months to encourage the manufacture of motor cars means that automatically by that you are doing something to encourage the death of citizens. I am not prepared to accept as successful merely a reduction of this ratio. We have to keep in our minds these terrible figures, which are no less terrible because there may happen to be more cars on the road. It does not matter to the 7,000 families which have been turned into families of mourning this year that we might have expected that there would be rather more. I appeal to Members, not only in their capacity as legislators in this House, but in view of the tremendous influence they have in various directions and in various districts throughout the country, to cooperate with me in what ultimately can be the only solution of this problem, that is, to bring home to all who use our roads that they have not only rights, but duties, and that consideration and courtesy for others is the best cure for the problem with which this Bill is meant to deal.

1.26 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Inasmuch as I raised this matter some time ago in a discussion, I want to express my gratification and that of my hon Friends, and I should
like to reinforce what the Minister has said as to the co-operation of the whole community. I only hope that those who have citicised the Bill will now forget all their criticism, because it is the only effort which is being made, and it is only by a common effort that this scandal can be lifted from our public life. I hope, with the Minister, that this appalling loss will be looked upon as a burden upon the public conscience, and that he will have the gratification—I could not imagine any greater gratification which might come to him in office in later years—of having contributed substantially to the lessening of the suffering of the community. I would not have liked the Bill, having had some interest in it and having spoken upon it on its introduction, to have passed through this House without making this comment and saying these words of very high appreciation.

1.27 p.m.

Mr. HALES: It rests with the motorists to make a success of the Bill. I shall give it my whole-hearted assistance, but I feel somewhat in the position of the little boy whose father returned from abroad. His father went away in his infancy and came back 10 years afterwards, maimed and blind, and had lost a leg. When his mother introduced the boy to his father and said, "Johnny, this is your father," Johnny looked at him for a moment or two and then turned to his mother, wonderingly, and said, "Mother, is this the best you can do for me?" This Bill leaves out matters which might have been included, and I want to make a suggestion which I feel sure will be carried out in a later Bill. No mention has been made about the misuse of the horn, and in my opinion—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): The hon. Member cannot discuss on the Third Reading what is not in the Bill.

Mr. HALES: However, I would like to point out that under Clause 13 it is very hard that we should be compelled to pay for medical services for which we receive no benefit and in respect of which it is not our responsibility. I hope that the example of Norway regarding the unnecessary misuse of the horn will be followed and that in future we shall introduce several improvements in the Road
Traffic Act. That is all I want to say about the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

1.29 p.m.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Bill is a short and simple one and no long exposition of it is necessary. It provides for the setting up of a National Maritime Museum in certain buildings at Greenwich, which were recently occupied by the Greenwich Hospital School and are now no longer required for that purpose by reason of the fact that the school has moved to new and very much better buildings at Holbrook in Suffolk. These buildings consist of, first, the historic Queen's House, the work of Inigo Jones, completed in 1635, which has, since 1st June this year, been placed by the Admiralty in the guardianship of the Commissioners of Works and my Department as an ancient monument. A good deal of preservation work will be necessary to restore the house, hitherto occupied by officers of the School, to its original character as far as that can be carried out. Secondly, there are the disused school buildings which are to be handed over to my Department. These were erected at various dates in the nineteenth century, and can be readily adapted for the purposes of the Museum. The land on which these buildings stand has been vested in the Admiralty as part of the Greenwich Hospital Trust, and under Clause 1 of the Bill the freehold will be transferred to my Department on the understanding—which is also in Clause 1 of the Bill—that if ever they cease to be used for the specific purposes of the National Maritime Museum they will revert to the Admiralty for the purposes of the Trust. The remainder of the Bill deals with the appointment of a Board of Trustees and their powers of management.
The finance of the scheme is clearly set out in the Financial Memorandum accompanying the Bill. It will be seen that the cost of adapting and equipping the vacant school buildings for the Museum is estimated at £29,000, and that Sir James Caird has very generously offered to defray this sum at his own expense. This gentleman has already proved a most munificent patron of the proposed Museum and, indeed, of any good cause relating to maritime interests. It was he who gave £65,000 towards the restoration of the "Victory" and £15,000 towards the restoration of the "Implacable," and when several famous collections, such as the Macpherson Collection of Naval Prints, and the Mercury Collection of Ships' Models were in imminent danger of being broken up and lost to this country, he stepped in and bought them at a very high price in anticipation of the day when a National Maritime Museum could be established. He has since made many more acquisitions in the way of pictures on naval subjects by many well-known artists, including Reynolds, Allan Ramsay, Brooking, Sartorius and others, and a very large number of drawings. Sir James Caird has expressed himself as now willing to make over these remarkable collections to the new Museum by Deed of Gift as soon as the Bill becomes an Act. The cost of all these acquisitions which Sir James Caird has so generously offered to the British nation exceeds £300,000. Accordingly, it is not too much to say that the main purpose of the Bill is to enable the great generosity of Sir James Caird to take full effect. The Bill provides an opportunity of filling a singular gap in the National Collections. There is little in the way of human knowledge that cannot be studied in our Metropolitan galleries and museums; art in all its schools; science in all its aspects; history, both ancient and modern; but, curiously enough, there is nowhere where one can study the history of our national maritime adventure and development; nowhere is there an orderly arrangement of naval exhibits, and no attempt has yet been made to illustrate conveniently for the general public the immense field of British maritime endeavour, historical, technical, geographical and commercial, including not only the exploits of the Royal Navy
through history, but also of the Mercantile Marine. If the country has had to wait a long time for the new Museum the delay has been worth while if it has resulted in the present scheme. It would be impossible to imagine a better site for the new Museum than Greenwich, with its great naval associations going back long into the past. It was at Woolwich and Deptford, nearby, that Henry VIII set up his new naval yards. It was at Greenwich that Queen Elizabeth knighted Sir Francis Drake on the deck of the "Golden Hind," and it was in the Great Hall of the Queen's House that Robert Blake, who was the founder of our Admiralty system, lay in state.
The architectural setting is magnificent. To the north lies the great pile of Greenwich Hospital buildings; to the south lies Greenwich Park. When Inigo Jones' Queen's House has been restored and the whole site laid out as park land, a very notable improvement will be effected for the benefit of all the citizens of South London and the taxpayers of this country. The new Museum will be overlooked by the famous Royal Observatory, from whose meridian the whole world takes its longitude. This in itself is a permanent and world-wide tribute to Britain's leadership in maritime science. For all these reasons the site proposed for the long delayed Maritime Museum may be described as ideal.
The progress made by the new Museum will depend largely on the enthusiasm and ability of the First Board of Trustees. Every effort has been made to collect a strong team representing all maritime interests, and I take this opportunity of announcing to the House and the public the names of the gentlemen who will serve on the new Board of the Museum, which is to be set up by this House. The chairman will be Earl Stanhope, and the other members of the Board of Trustees will be R. C. Anderson, Esq; Admiral of the Fleet Earl Beatty; Sir William Berry; Sir James Caird, the great benefactor; Captain H. F. David, of the Mercantile Marine; Admiral Sir George Hope; the Earl of Ilchester; Sir Frederick Kenyon, late Director of the British Museum; Sir Percy Mackinnon; Admiral Sir Herbert Richmond and my right hon. Friend the present President of the Board of Trade, in his personal capacity.
The post of first Director has been offered to Professor Callender, Professor of History at the Royal Naval College, Greenwich, whose enthusiasm and scholarship in all matters appertaining to naval history are well known. In such surroundings, with such associations and with so competent a Board of Trustees, the new Museum should, in the course of a few years from now, become one of the most prominent of our National institutions, and should be a means of attracting to Greenwich an ever increasing number of visitors from both home and overseas.
As the Bill conveys to my Department for the purposes of a National Museum property vested in the Admiralty in Trust for Greenwich Hospital, it is technically what is called a hybrid Bill and under our Standing Orders must go to a Select Committee. Further, as provision has to be made out of public funds for the staff and maintenance of the Museum, it requires a Financial Resolution. I hope, however, that what I have said to-day will satisfy the House as to the nature and merits of the Bill and that all subsequent stages may in fact prove to be formal. I am glad of this brief opportunity of explanation, if only to have been able to express on behalf of His Majesty's Government and the House our great gratitude to Sir James Caird for having rendered the realisation of this project possible.

1.40 p.m.

Mr. G. HALL: The House is indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the very interesting speech which he has delivered in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, and I wish to say on behalf of those who sit on these Benches that we shall assist him in getting all the stages of the Bill through, as he requested, quite formally. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the generosity of Sir James Caird, and we associate ourselves with all that he said. Whilst reference is being made to the generosity of Sir James Caird, I feel sure that the House will allow me to refer to the generosity of someone else which has made the National Maritime Museum possible on the proposed site. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty will like me to refer to this matter. I refer to the Trust that was handed over by the late Mr. Reade while I occupied the position at the Admiralty
now occupied by my hon. Friend. It is not generally known in the House that as a result of the generosity of the late Mr. Reade who, in a deed of gift, gave about 850 acres of land in Suffolk, where the new school has been erected, the school buildings at Greenwich referred to by my right hon. Friend became available for the present purpose. In addition to the gift of land the late Mr. Reade left the whole of his fortune, amounting, I think, to between £400,000 and £500,000, in trust, to accumulate until 1940, when it is hoped that it will reach a sum of something like £800,000 or £900,000. That matter ought to be mentioned in connection with this Bill, because I do not think that at any time any reference has been made to the generosity of the late Mr. Reade.
I agree with my right hon. Friend when he said that the time has arrived that we should have a National Museum of this kind. It seems strange that a great maritime nation and a great naval Power like ours should have allowed these historic objects to wander about into various parts of the country. I am very pleased that they are to be collected and housed in a suitable place, not only on a site which is historic but in a building which has played a very important part in the naval history of this country. I am very pleased to hear that some of the older buildings are not to be interfered with to any great extent, because those who have had the pleasure of visiting Greenwich are very much impressed with the architectural beauty of the buildings. The only concern that I have is not that the buildings are not suited to a Museum of this kind, but as to the actual location of the Museum at Greenwich. In connection with such a Museum we have to remember not only those who are specially interested but those who are not particularly interested but who may be induced to go and see these historic objects. While Greenwich is convenient for people to get at from London it is a little outside the centre of this great City. There are, however, some compensating considerations inasmuch as the site and the buildings themselves are of such great interest and have such great traditions behind them.
I am pleased that the Admiralty are co-operating in this effort. This is very valuable. I trust, however, that the funds of Greenwich Hospital are not going to suffer to any extent as a result of this gift of valuable property, not that I would suggest that it should be sold for any other purpose. I do not know any purpose for which the property is more suited. Let me say one word concerning one who has taken an active interest in bringing this project into being, that is, my predecessor, as Civil Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Stanhope. He has worked in and out of season in endeavouring to get this Maritime Museum established and it is fitting that he should be the first chairman of the Board of Trustees. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that as far as we are concerned we shall give him all the assistance we can in getting the Bill passed.

1.47 p.m.

Colonel CROOKSHANK: I should like to say just a few words in congratulating the First Commissioner of Works in bringing in the Bill. As one who has made some small endeavours on behalf of the Army in connection with such a museum, I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the great generosity of those who have made this project possible. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the lack in this country of any collection of the records of our wonderful maritime history, and it was with that object in view that I endeavoured to do a little-for the sake of the Army. I hope that this will be the precursor of a general interest in this subject by the general body of the public, as with such a magnificent record as we have it is most important that we should accumulate and house these treasures. There is one question which I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman, and, that is, whether, having made this effort, it will make him feel disposed to assist the Army also. We feel that we do not want to be left out, and this at all events gives a lead in the matter. I should also like to ask him how this new museum will affect the Royal United Service Institution in Whitehall, where, as he knows, there is a wonderful accumulation of treasures. I notice that arrangements are to be made for the transfer from one collection to another. I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall)
that Greenwich is a little inaccessible, whereas the United Services Institution provides an opportunity for people visiting London to see these treasures. The accomodation, unfortunately, is somewhat limited and those who go find it a little difficult to give them the examination and attention which they deserve, I hope that this may enable the First Commissioner of Works to do something to increase the accommodation available there for these exhibits, and that the Measure will be passed into law as speedily as possible.

1.49 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: In a few words I want to congratulate the First Commissioner of Works on the opportunity that has been presented to him of bringing to fruition a project which has been in the minds of many for some years past—namely, the establishment of a National Maritime Museum, the want of which was a great gap in the museums of this country. It was rather strange that for a sea loving nation as we are that this one museum was still wanting. I should also like to take this opportunity of congratulating the donors whose great generosity has made this possible. It has been said that Greenwich has some possible drawbacks for such a museum, but, on the other hand, it is an ideal centre, and if one were asked what place in the whole of Great Britain one would choose for a national maritime museum there would be a great majority in favour of Greenwich. When we have such a setting as that nobody who takes an interest in our past maritime history, and what I hope will still be our great future maritime history, will find it any great effort to make a pilgrimage to Greenwich. When the projects outlined by the right hon. Gentleman come to fruition I am sure that anyone who makes that pilgrimage will be amply rewarded for his effort. I hope the Bill will go through its further stages without any difficulty and that the project will take shape at the earliest possible moment.

1.51 p.m.

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Captain Euan Wallace): I only rise to answer two specific points which have been put to me. Let me, however, say how grateful we are to the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall)
for his references to Mr. Reade and how pleased we are to be associated with him in everything that he said. The hon. Member is quite correct in saying that we have never had an opportunity of publicly acknowledging in this House the debt which we owe to Mr. Reade. The hon. Member asks whether the proposals in this Bill would have any prejudicial effect on the funds of Greenwich Hospital. I am delighted to assure him that if anything it is rather the other way. It is difficult to assess the value of such a building, but the Valuation Department of the Board of Inland Revenue has estimated it in its present condition at £15,000. That may sound a small sum, but there are certain special factors to be taken into account. Queen's House is now under the Office of Works as an ancient monument; we have, obviously, to preserve the amenities of the Royal Naval College; and there is under one of the playgrounds a tunnel through which the Southern Railway runs, and which in some places is only 2 ft. 9 in. below the surface.
These factors considerably depreciate its value as a commercial site. On the other hand the funds of Greenwich Hospital have had to bear a charge of over £3,000 for upkeep. In the present year we have reduced that sum to £1,200 in anticipation and have thus saved £1,800 under that head; and in future we shall save the full £3,000. Moreover, it is possible, when the Museum is completed and the pictures are taken out of the painted hall and put into the Museum, that the Greenwich Hospital Fund will no longer have to bear the charge of £600 a year for the wages and uniforms of the three yeomen. It is clear, therefore, that this great naval charity will not suffer. With regard to the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Bootle (Colonel Crookshank), it is met, actually, in the Bill. It is open to the Royal United Services Institution to lend exhibits to this new museum, and vice versa, and I do not think there is any reason to suppose that these powers will not be utilised for the benefit of both institutions.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, Three to be nominated by the House and Two by the Committee of Selection:

Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill, presented at any time not later than five clear days after the Second Reading of the Bill, be referred to the Committee:

Ordered, That Petitions against the Bill may be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office, provided that such Petitions shall have been prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of this House relating to Petitions against Private Bills:

Ordered, That the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill:

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:

Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—[Mr. Ormsby-Gore.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM [MONEY].

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the establishment of a National Maritime Museum and for the addition of certain lands to Greenwich Park, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment by any Board appointed under the said Act to manage the Museum of any moneys received by them into the Exchequer except as otherwise provided by the said Act;
(b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses not otherwise provided for by the said Act incurred by the said Board in carrying the said Act into effect, including any salaries or remuneration paid to the Director of the Museum or to any officers appointed by the said Board;
(c) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Works in carrying the said Act into effect." (King's Recommendation Signified)—[Mr. Ormsby-Gore.]

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — MILK BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

1.57 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: We cannot let this Bill pass its Third Reading without making another protest against what we regard as its inadequacy in some respects to deal with the problem with which it is supposed to deal, and without making one or two comments on what we regard as some unsatisfactory features of the Bill. Its passing marks another phase in the manifold activities of the Minister of Agriculture in seeking to deal with the problem of agriculture as he finds it. His activities, of course, have met with the general approval of most hon. Members who represent agricultural constituencies, but when the Bill has reached the Statute Book I am not certain whether the Minister will have satisfied the agricultural Members of the House completely, because even when the provisions of the Bill are in operation he will find that their demands are as clamant and insistent as they have ever been during the right hon. Gentleman's tenure of office. But we must pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman's efforts, although we think them in some respects misguided and in others misdirected. At any rate the right hon. Gentleman does things. Sometimes, from our point of view, he does them in the wrong way, but no one will be able to say that he sat idly by while British agriculture went to ruin.
So this Bill marks the right hon. Gentleman's latest effort to deal with a part of a problem which he himself has described as the economics of glut. In this case the commodity concerned is milk. He has told us that far more milk is being produced than can be consumed under existing conditions, at least in forms which mean an economic price to the producer. Granting for the moment that the Minister has made out his case for a temporary subsidy for manufacturing milk, because the surplus is so large—I do not want to suggest that he has not done that—it by no means follows that it is a justifiable course to subsidise manufacturing milk for the next two years. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has made out any case for subsidising it for two years. He agrees, and I think the Under-Secretary for Scotland agrees, as to the desirability of increasing the consumption of liquid milk. There is general agreement on that point. Everyone who has taken part in these Debates has told us that that is one of
the best things we can do. If that be so, we are bound to ask ourselves whether the proposals of the Bill are calculated to further that object as quickly as possible. We on these Benches do not think that they are. They may result in the consumption of milk in other forms to an increased extent, rather than in the increased consumption of liquid milk.
The Minister at one time or another has taken justifiable pride in having turned the milk industry into what he calls an organised industry. The chaos, confusion and anarchy which prevailed have been to some degree ended, and the right hon. Gentleman has now great pride in informing us that the industry is organised. If this organisation is to be assisted by taxpayers' money it should be assisted, on the Minister's own showing, to increase the consumption of milk in the form which, it is generally agreed, is the most desirable, both for consumer and producer. The general agreement about that is that we should increase the consumption of liquid milk. That is the main object which the Minister ought to have in view. It is argued very forcibly that it is necessary to subsidise manufacturing milk in order to prevent the price of liquid milk being increased, with the consequent probability that consumption would decline. That is the way in which the Minister seeks to justify the subsidy to manufacturing milk.
We all know that any rise in the price of liquid milk would tend to reduce consumption by the poorer paid workers, who already consume far too little liquid milk. How ironical it seems that we should have available a large supply of a nutritious and valuable food and that those who are in the greatest need of it cannot afford to buy it. On the Minister's own showing he dare not do anything which would raise the price of liquid milk because he fears a decline in consumption. So he prefers another method of dealing with the problem. When I hear him speak I cannot help recalling some of the studies in which I was interested in days gone by and am still interested to some degree—studies in connection with the long struggle that man has made through hundreds of years to gain ever increasing control over his food supplies. He has had to make long and arduous efforts to do that. Now as the Minister of Agriculture frequently
reminds us, the object of that quest has been more or less achieved. Scarcity in regard to vital commodities is not known in these days and all the right hon Gentleman has to deal with are surpluses.
I think it was an American economist who said that the old world forged ahead of the new world when the people in the old world had learned to domesticate cattle and had passed on to a meat and milk subsistence. But it was a long time before they made that meat and milk subsistence sure. Now they have made it sure, and it is a great tragedy that to-day, when meat and milk exist in great quantities, those who need them most in the civilised communities of the world cannot get them. There are surpluses but they are not available for those who are in most need. That is, indeed, a tragic situation. If we felt sure that what the Minister is doing in this Bill was likely to make it more possible for those who need these surpluses to get them, we should have no objection to the Bill. As the Bill stands, we have some decided objections to it.
We feel that the subsidy in respect of milk used for manufacture is not justified over a long period like two years. In view of the fact that everybody agrees on the need for increasing the consumption of liquid milk I put it to the Minister that he should turn his attention to devising some scheme which would bring increasing quantities of liquid milk within the reach of the poorer paid sections of the people, and particularly children and nursing mothers. I ask him to give his attention to that matter long before this period of two years expires. Then I do not think that Clause 9 of the Bill and the machinery created in other Clauses of the Bill will satisfactorily meet the problem of what the Minister has called "cleaning up our herds." I have sat for some eight or nine years on the agricultural committee of a county council—though probably some of the agricultural Members of this House may think that I ought not to have occupied such a position. I have also been a member of the health committee of that county council. It is, of course, the health committee which supervises matters in relation to the milk supply, and that committee employs veterinary surgeons who inspect cattle and deal with cattle diseases. I have always noticed that the
veterinary surgeons and their reports to the health committee are not infrequently attacked at the agricultural committee by the agricultural members of the council, who do not always appear to regard the activities of the veterinary surgeons with favour.
Listening to speeches on this subject in the House, I have been reminded of a country squire who is a member of the county council to which I belong and of the manner in which on one occasion he swept aside arguments in favour of more drastic inspection of the herds in the county with a view to the prevention of dirty milk. He was a big burly gentleman and he waived the critic on one side saying, "Look at me. I was brought up on dirty milk." While that attitude of mind prevails on the agricultural committees of our county councils, the Minister will not get very far by means of the machinery proposed in this Bill. I do not say that that attitude is widespread and general. I hope the example which I have mentioned is an isolated one, though I fear it is not. But if that attitude of mind prevails to any extent, then, unless the Minister devises some form of machinery other than that proposed in the Bill he will not get far with the process known as cleaning up the herds. I know all about the premiums to be given for clean milk and the other inducements, but the Minister will have to change the attitude of mind and the whole outlook of many people in the agricultural industry on this problem.
With regard to the money that is to be spent under this Bill it should be noted that in the period covered by the Bill we are to spend £5,500,000 of the taxpayers' money. We are entitled to ask: Are we likely to get full value for it? Will the economic and social life of the nation be enriched by this gift? I call it a gift, though I know it is said to be a loan. There is talk of it being repaid, but the Minister has pointed out that in certain circumstances it may not be repaid, and the probability is that it will not be repaid. We must ask therefore whether we are likely to benefit, from the social and economic point of view, as a nation by this expenditure, or whether the chief advantages of this gift will go to a relatively small section of the community? That is a very important question and
one which we have a right to put to the Minister. In this Measure, as in so many of the Government's other proposals, I fail to detect any great benefit which is likely to accrue to the mass of the working population of this country. It may well be that the £5,500,000 which is to be spent through the instrumentality of this Bill will bring nothing like that advantage to the mass of the people, which it could bring to them if it were devoted in some other way.
I hope it is not intended that this money should merely go into the pockets of farmers and landlords. When one considers the various Measures proposed by this Government one cannot help feeling that they are putting money into the pockets of farmers and landlords and manufacturers, and even ensuring that investors shall receive their interest regularly. But those people are not potentially larger consumers of milk. If the Minister looks out over the life of the community to-day to see where he is likely to find potentially larger consumers of milk, it must become apparent to him that the market which he wants is among the great working-class population of the country. We do not feel that, primarily, the proposals of the Bill are likely to achieve what the Minister says he desires, namely, the greater consumption of liquid milk by the mass of the people. Therefore, we must make our final protest before the Bill receives a Third Reading.

2.14 p.m.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: I do not propose to detain the House very long, but we do not want this Bill to pass to another place without adding a few more words to the comments which have already been made on these proposals. As to questions of detail, I should like to address some remarks to those in charge of the Bill on the subject of Clause 3. Some of my hon. Friends and I moved an Amendment to make certain alterations in this Clause, and the answer which we got was not altogether satisfactory. The point of it was that Clause 3 is there to regulate, apparently, the supply of milk for cheese. I hope that before the Bill goes from this House to another place it will be amended, and that the true purpose of the Clause, as explained to the Committee by the Under-Secretary, will be made quite clear to anybody who
reads the Bill. As regard the general point raised, the House is well aware that we agree fully with the Clauses which deal with the advertising of milk and the giving of milk to school children.
The right hon. Gentleman has said before that this Bill proposes to lift the burden off the industry. I am afraid that he is not going to lift the burden very far. All that this subsidy is going to do is to add something just over a farthing for every gallon of milk produced. I do not think that that is going to help the farmer very much. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that when he set up the Milk Board it was with the idea of doing really three things. The first was to correct the unremunerative price which is being paid to the producers; the second was to reduce the high price which consumers were paying, and consequently provide a remedy for the low consumption; and the third object, to my mind, was to regulate the quantity and also to regulate the unreliable quality of the supply. The result has been that the price is lower than ever. The producer has made very little out of it, the consumer pays more and consumption has not increased. As regards quantity and quality, both are more chaotic than ever.
The remedy, as far as we are concerned, does not consist in the subsidising of manufactured milk. That merely means an increased quantity and does not have any influence whatever on quality. We advocate the greater distribution of free milk in the schools. We were very pleased the other day when the right hon. Gentleman said that six-sevenths of the sum put at his disposal was to be spent on that object, and we hope that with the help of the Government the supply to the schools will tend to increase whether by means of subsidy or some other means. To our mind, the costs of distribution are still far too high. The whole of this scheme as well as the bacon scheme are based on the requirements of the distributors. The first thing considered is the margin which the distributors want, and then attention is paid to the consumer, but the distributors always seem to come first. We on these benches hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do something to curb the appetite and the rapacity of the distributors.
Then with regard to the question of disease in herds. This is an administration Measure, and I hope that the Minister of Agriculture is not going to approach this problem in a defeatist spirit. We have heard from those benches and from other parts of the House that enormous sums are to be spent. The sum of £50,000,000 has been mentioned. That seems to us to be perfectly fantastic, and I think that if the right hon. Gentleman tackled this subject in the same way that things were tackled during the War at the Ministry of Munitions, where I had the pleasure of serving for a short time, men of push and go could be found able to tackle this business and get it through quickly. I would like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the new discoveries which are being made. I hope that the Minister will pay attention to the inoculation of calves as regards T.T., and I hope that he will make an inquiry into the new system of inoculation to prevent foot-and-mouth disease—a system which, I believe, has been very successfully tried in Belgium. There is no disease which threatens the dairy farmer more than foot-and-mouth disease.
This is an era of subsidies. After we leave this subject another subsidy is to be discussed. It can be pointed out that subsidies benefit only one section of the population. The subsidy which is put forward by the right hon. Gentleman on this occasion is one for the manufacturers of milk. It is a subsidy to a section of the population. A uniform pool price which is brought about by subsidy can only lower the grade of the milk, but the subsidy which is given to provide in schools free milk of pure quality is one which will benefit the whole nation. It is not a subsidy which is purely sectional, to provide profit for one part of the population. The health of the whole nation, or a very large part of it, would benefit if a large number of school children were given free milk of a pure quality, and I hope that the Minister and his Department will carry further that policy.

2.23 p.m.

Mr. HOROBIN: This is the first Measure which the Minister of Agriculture has introduced since his unfortunate absence from us which we deplored at the time, but we are all glad to see him here again. He is certainly none the worse
for his absence; in fact, he is asking for a little more money than usual, and none of us would like to cavil at another million or two, or an extra committee or so on this auspicious occasion. I feel sometimes that he has an unfair advantage in the fact that his very great personal popularity among all sections of the House is inclined to blunt the weapon of our wrath. I, myself, feel rather like the character in one of Shakespeare's plays who said:
An I had but one penny in the world, thou should'st have it to buy gingerbread.
The Minister has, by this time, persuaded all of us, I imagine, that the agricultural industry in this country is faced with a very important problem—the problem of how to quarter itself on the taxpayer as quickly and widely as possible. Before the last Election, that process was usually described as Poplarism, and as I live close to Poplar, and in a borough which had its guardians removed by his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I amused myself during the time this Bill has been going through by looking up the accounts there. I see they were got rid of when they had an actual deficit of something less than £1,000,000. It is time that Poplar got away with a bit more, but they spent at least one term in the jug to get it. Both Sir Alfred Woodgate, who was sent down there, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who sent him there, are alive still, and I hope I shall live to see a visit by Sir Alfred Woodgate to the Ministry of Agriculture in this connection.
I must call attention to this one further example of the way in which the bad joke of one year becomes the sad reality of the following in these matters of planning, subsidy, and interference with industry. Not very long ago my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, in a speech outside this House, made some reference—dealing with meat, I think it was—in which he said that before his policy came to fruition the country would have to put up with a terrible lot of very nasty and dear food.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): No; if my policy were not adopted.

Mr. HOROBIN: My right hon. Friend's memory is worse than his conscience. He
said that before his policy came to fruition the country would have to be put up with a lot of very dear and nasty food, and when I referred to that in a speech in this House he was kind enough to say that as I made a considerable number of jokes, I ought not to be hard on him if he made one, but he promised never to make another, yet here is his very practical joke now on us. Here we are dealing with this nasty and dear food, this dirty, tuberculous, subsidised mess that we have been discussing for so many days. I must point out that the reason for this glut is very simple. It is that this milk is too dear and too dangerous for the ordinary consuming public. We have a tremendous lot of talk about the glut of imported milk products coming into this country, and we were given the impression that butter, cheese, and all sorts of things were being piled up and could not be disposed of. That may well happen some day when the Board really get into their stride, but at the moment it is not happening; all this "glut" of milk imports is going into the bellies of my constituents and of other people's. For the first time in their unhappy lives they are getting every day enough or nearly enough of these milk products, and the truth about all this talk about glut is that the unhappy consumer, having had to put up with an attempted blockade by the Germans 15 years ago, has now to put up with a more successful blockade by the farmers of this country.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: Is the hon. Member not aware of many cases where farmers have no market for immense quantities of milk?

Mr. HOROBIN: Because they are trying to get a price that people cannot pay. I do not need to go to any academic or Socialist person for an example of the opposite policy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had a similar problem to face not very long ago. He is in charge of a very pleasant liquid food. He found that the consumption of beer was going down, and he hunted about through musty precedents and discredited whimsies of the 19th century to find out how he could increase the quantity of beer consumed. Did he set up a Marketing Board or a Committee? No. He reduced the price and made the brewers themselves improve the quality.

Mr. ELLIOT: My hon. Friend knows that the Chancellor reduced the taxation, thus making it possible to improve the quality.

Mr. HOROBIN: I do not think my right hon. Friend could make many people in this House or outside believe that it is the same thing to set about increasing the consumption of beer by reducing the heavy taxation which has made its price too high, and to set to work to give public money away and, therefore, presumably to increase the taxation somewhere else. I know the right hon. Gentleman belongs to the opposite school in these matters. He has found a better way; his eyes are on the future, on the generations still unborn, whose principal amusement will be paying interest and sinking fund on his loans. We have had some little experience of my right hon. Friend. It cannot be a coincidence this everlasting recurrence to subsidy and borrowing. Everyone will remember the obvious gusto with which he came down to that Box on one occasion, his first considerable occasion in this Parliament, when he appeared to borrow at one fell swoop £150,000,000 for the Exchange Equalisation Account. It is true that that account was put into very capable and very formidable hands, and that the Bank soon began to report that there was profit in the account. The right hon. Gentleman promptly lost his interest in it and became Minister of Agriculture. Since then, we have seen appear here that astronomical vagueness that seems always to afflict agricultural planners. He has not been allowed to be very astronomical, but he is at least vague, as anybody who tries to discover an estimate in this Bill will soon find. Almost the only function of these marketing boards, and certainly the chief attraction for the Minister, is that they provide a magnificent opportunity for going on borrowing. If I may adapt a quotation:
A primrose by the river's brim,
A prior lien is to him,
And it is nothing more.
I would not like the House to overlook the fact that, although the right hon. Gentleman is very fond of borrowing, his views on what constitutes the responsibility of repaying are very hazy. When the Unemployment Fund gets into a deficit, it has to repay the uttermost farthing.
Forty years in the wilderness for them, paying full rate of interest. But the right hon. Gentleman and his friends do not spend 40 years in the wilderness. They have a look at the "wilderness for two years, and if they do not like the look of it, they are then carried straight over Jordan on the taxpayers' backs. Let the House remember that if they do not repay, somebody has got to. The loan will still have been incurred and the 40 years' interest and sinking fund will still continue. It is only that our agricultural friends will not have to bear the burden of it; though they will have got the cash. It is not only a question of terms of repayment because the question of security also is involved. If these marketing Boards go on borrowing why cannot they do what others have to do, namely, go to the city and put up a proposition that would appeal to the ordinary investor? We are always being told that there are enormous sums of money idle in the City awaiting investment. Then why is it necessary in this Bill to put in provisions of the kind that we find here? For the very simple reason that they cannot get it in the City. If they went to the City, the people there would want to know what was the security for repayment. They would require all the ordinary information that good companies give, but the right hon. Gentleman is coming to the House of Commons, the guardians of the public purse, and anything will do for the House of Commons. He comes here with the sort of proposition that would be thrown out after five minutes' consideration by people who have to handle other people's money in the City. Apparently, it is quite good enough in the House of Commons; we are only handling public money. We are not sure whether it will be £2,000,000 or £5,000,000; anything will do, and it goes through on a Friday afternoon probably without a Division.
Before leaving the financial aspect, there is another point which is worthy of the consideration of the House. At the very moment when this Bill is going through the House the City has issued, and has obtained large public support for, a very big Canadian loan involving something like £500,000 in interest and sinking fund repayments for the life time of practically every one in this Chamber. Half a million pounds worth of Canadian cheese, Canadian wheat, Canadian agricultural
products of one sort or another—they are not likely to be manufactures—has to come into this country without a penny of exports to pay for them for the life time of every Member of the House; and this at the very time we are entering upon a course which, it is almost public property, must lead to an attempt to obtain a reduction—

Mr. ELLIOT: I do not mind my hon. Friend arguing in connection with this Bill but he argues a course which is not a course of the Bill. I am sure his acute mind will have grasped the fact that in this Bill we do not propose a reduction of Canadian cheese. That is the difference between it and the course of restriction to which be has taken so much exception.

Mr. HOROBIN: I do not think I have made my point very clear. I was referring to what is common knowledge, that, as part of this scheme of quantitative restriction, efforts were in fact being made to obtain a reduction of—

Mr. ELLIOT: I am sure my hon. Friend will search in vain throughout every Clause and line of the Bill for anything about quantitative restrictions.

Mr. HOROBIN: It is not in the Bill but it is the clear implication of quantitative restrictions. I will not pursue it, but I think the point I have in mind is clear. These points are of considerable importance and should be considered before we part with a Bill dealing with perhaps the most important food of the country.
Leaving the financial part of the Bill, I think it is only fair to remind the House of the very grave dangers of setting up and entrenching what, in fact, are huge trusts and monopolies, especially in the foodstuffs of the people. The Cooperative Societies will be all right. There is a very well known and esteemed co-operative official in charge of this very Board. The big distributors will find a way round or over it. After all, money talks, and when it has something important to say it does not have to shout as a rule. How, on the other hand, is the small man affected? I am in the position of other Members of continually getting circulars from independent creameries and small
distributors and so on, saying that there is happening what has happened where-ever such things have been tried here or in the United States, and that they are being ground out between the upper and nether millstones. I can bring to the House some confirmation of these views which is not yet very readily obtainable in this House. I do not want to refer to what has been happening here or to what has been happening in the United States, because, as the House probably knows, I have made some rather derogatory criticisms on a previous occasion and I might be held to be biased. But there has been recently published in one of the Dominions one of the most interesting reports I have ever read, and it is extraordinarily relevant to the Bill we are discussing. With the permission of the House, I will read one or two extracts from the Report of the Commission, which was presented to both Houses of Parliament by the Governor-General of South Africa a month or two ago. The Commission heard a great deal of evidence, and I think their experience and conclusions are in some ways almost uncannily relevant to our problem. They say:
The Commission is of opinion that a price controlling body composed solely of producers is, due to its inherent weakness of representing the supply factor only, not fundamentally equipped to exercise that essential restraining influence in regard to price policy. Bearing in mind the human element it is hardly conceivable that any body of producers of any agricultural product, having full control, will bring themselves to fix a price which is not higher than that which would have ruled had the ordinary forces of supply and demand been allowed free play. Otherwise why fix prices? The very factor which makes for strength in a co-operative concern, viz., democratic control, equal say in the affairs of the association, is a source of weakness to such organisation as a price fixing machine.
They go on to say:
Placing the control of an industry in the hands of producers by legislative enactment virtually amounts to conferring the power of taxation of the consuming public on a small body of producers' representatives, who are, generally speaking, constitutionally unfit to exercise such power in the best interests of both producer and consumer.
I will read a further sentence:
In view of the considerations advanced in this and the previous chapter regarding the harmful effects of control measures and price fixation and the disastrous experi-
ence of other countries with control legislation of this nature, the Commission finds itself unable to support the principle of sale through one channel by means of boards of control. The Commission is of opinion that the competitive marketing system, although in its application in South Africa not free from undesirable features, has proved itself capable of fulfilling the functions of marketing efficiently and the Commission feels that, assisted and strengthened by co-operative marketing organisations of producers, the system holds promise of even greater efficiency in the future. The competitive system automatically adjusts supply and demand and by means of price acts as a healthy and essential check on production and supply. The introduction of an artificial system of price control which is intended by producers to maintain prices at an artificially 'fixed' level must necessarily eliminate this essential check on supply and lead to maladjustment and ultimate collapse of prices. The granting of arbitrary price fixation powers and complete control over an industry to a statutory board of control, whether composed of producers or of impartial individuals, runs counter to our traditions, the philosophy of our Government, the spirit of our institutions, and all principles of equity, and the Commission considers that it is an economic experiment from which this country has every right to be spared.
Is it surprising, therefore, that their conclusion was:
Compulsory co-operation and sales through one channel"—
this is practically their name for a marketing board—
with the object of fixing and controlling prices of agricultural products should not be sanctioned by legislation and the existing provisions in the Co-operative Societies Act in this respect should be repealed.
That is the experience of one of their own Dominions. The extract I have read will bring to the mind of the House the extraordinary similarity with the dangers that may be found to happen or to have happened in our own case. For my part I cannot see that the policy of which this Bill is an essential part has either so far proved a success or is likely to prove a success, and it has very grave dangers, both financial and economic, to which this House ought to give very serious consideration.
I have spoken rather longer than I intended, but I have one final word to say and that is to the Minister. I do not know whether there will be a Division, but I myself have thought very carefully over what ought to be one's action on this Bill. On the one hand the House might say that Members who continually
speak against and oppose these Measures one after another as they come forward and yet do not vote against them are merely taking up the time of the House with objections without pushing them to a necessary conclusion, and I think the House would rightly resent that attitude; but I myself, and those who think like me, have to bear in mind that our primary duty is to support the National Government and that this agricultural policy is, though an important part, only one part of its policy, and the Minister may claim, and rightly claim, his quota of credit in the general policy of the Government which has been such a resounding success. It is with considerable hesitation that I have decided that the proper thing for those of us who feel acutely these dangers, both financial and otherwise, is still, while expressing them and pressing them on every occasion, to show by our votes that, however serious we consider this danger, it cannot possibly be allowed to over-ride our sense of appreciation of the general success of the Government's policy. If there is a Division, therefore, I shall support the Minister this afternoon, and for the reasons which I have given, which I hope will commend themselves to the bulk of the Members of the House; but I am sure that he will do one the credit of admitting that the criticisms which we have raised are of substance and are genuinely felt and I deign to hope that gradually our words and, what is far more important, the pressure of events may lead him to think that the reconsideration of this policy is becoming urgently due in the interests of our financial stability and in the interests of the agriculturists themselves, who have nothing to gain by a recurrence of their experience with the Corn Production Act; and above all, it is due in the interests of those poor consumers in industrial districts to whom so many Members of this House will have to give strict account at the next election.

2.48 p.m.

Mr. JOHN WALLACE: There is one point in the Bill on which I have a question to put to the Minister of Agriculture. In Clause 6 particulars are given of the payments to be made by the Treasury to the Government of Northern Ireland. It may be that I do not fully understand the purpose of this Bill, but I would like to know why it is necessary
to pay any subsidy at all to Northern Ireland, which has a Parliament of its own, and whether my right hon. Friend expects that when we come to a final reckoning there is any chance of that money being repaid. That is dealt with in Sub-section (2), paragraphs (a) and (b), and I shall not go into that at the moment, but I should like to know first, why this money should be paid to Northern Ireland, and second what are the prospects of repayment. I understand the primary objects of this Bill are threefold: (1) to increase the consumption of milk, (2) an improvement in the quality of milk, and (3) an effort to make a reasonable economic price for the producer. It may be possible that in time these objects will be achieved, but, while it is quite possible that we may increase the consumption of milk and raise the standard of quality, it does not seem at the moment as though the effort to secure a proper economic price to the consumer is likely to succeed.
In Scotland the administration of the scheme has given rise to the greatest possible dissatisfaction. I am not aware that my right hon. Friend is personally responsible for the milk marketing scheme in Scotland, because I know how that body was elected, but I can assure him that the full blast of criticism in Scotland is not falling upon the Milk Marketing Board, but upon his own devoted head, and that he is getting the credit for all the troubles which exist in the milk industry, especially in the east of Scotland.
If the primary object was to secure an economic price for the producer surely the achievement of it has signally failed. In matters of this kind I like to come down to bedrock, and I will quote one particular case, and one only, under the operation of the scheme in Fifeshire, to which I would draw the particular attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. This milk producer has written to tell me that since the scheme came into operation direct losses have been suffered by him in respect of levies. I will not give the whole of the figures, but he has suffered losses in sums varying from £18 to £46 from December of last year to May of this year. He further draws attention to a single contract on which his loss for
the period April to December will amount to the sum of £91. The reason is that the price has been reduced to 9d. in place of 1s. 2d., through the levy which he has to pay to the Milk Marketing Board. There must be some proper explanation of the condition of things which I have attempted to describe. The result of this experience, which is multiplied over many producers and producer-retailers, is that there will be an almost immediate break away from the whole of the scheme, and various associations have already arrived at decisions with that end in view. I am quite aware that an investigation has been promised by the Scottish Office and that the inquiry is now being made, but in the meantime these people are finding it impossible to make ends meet, and where previously they were making a reasonable profit, to-day they are suffering a definite loss which may land several of them in the bankruptcy court.
I know that the Minister of Agriculture has had to face problems which are as serious as those which ever confronted any Minister of the Crown, and he has brought his great abilities to bear upon what is a very difficult and involved problem. He admits that these marketing schemes are more or less experimental. We all wish him success and we appreciate the fact that he has taken his courage in both hands and rather than do nothing has embarked on a definite policy. It is a policy which some of us mistrust. I do not like this particular form of the planning of industry, but the House is bound to give this Bill a fair chance, and I certainly will not vote against it. I am bound to say that when I read the Bill first and tried to understand its involved complexities, an old Moorish proverb came to my mind which roughly translated runs, "When choosing a wife or buying a horse, let a man close his eyes and commend himself to God."

Mr. ELLIOT: I hope there is no personal reference.

Mr. WALLACE: I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman keeps his eyes open all the time, but I must say that a devotional attitude similar to that in the proverb would not be altogether inappropriate in regard to this Bill.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Is that the maxim of the Liberal National Group?

Mr. WALLACE: I speak, of course, for myself, but the right hon. Gentleman can depend upon it that I am still able to interpret their views satisfactorily.

2.55 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): We have had a brief but interesting Debate, and I do not overstate the position from the point of view of the Government in saying that the criticism shows a marked diminuendo. Take, for instance, the attitude of the hon. Gentleman who opened the attack on the earlier stages—it was an almost terrifying attack—upon the first main expense of the Bill, namely, the money for assisting milk used for manufacturing purposes. That tremendous attack is now reduced to a complaint that the money is to be spread over a period of two years and not one. That shows a very marked increase of appreciation on the part of hon. Members opposite as to the merits of the proposal. In so far as other speeches have attacked the proposal, they have done so on lines that it would be more useful to have reduced the prices of milk to the consumer. That attack has been cancelled by the statement of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild). It is perfectly correct that there will be, as a result of the pool for manufacturing milk, a certain reduction in the levy of one farthing per gallon, which will, of course, reproduce itself at the end of the day in the retail price of milk.
As the knowledge of hon. Members has increased in regard to the Measure, the more they apparently feel that we are not very far from dealing with the situation in the right way. There may be differences of view as to what proportion of the total sum can be spent and upon what particular item, but in concentrating upon reinforcing the finances of the milk scheme by contributing a higher price to the lowest price milk we are stabilising and underpinning the whole of the financial position. By attacking the situation at that point we are giving the most direct reinforcement to the financial basis of the scheme. I think it is obvious to the whole House that if you allowed all the milk which is at present used for manufacturing purposes to bring into the pool only some such sum as 3½d. per gallon, there would be a depressing effect upon the milk sold for
liquid purposes. It would bring down the price to all the producers to an even lower figure than at present. By strengthening the weak element, we are ensuring that the milk which is sold is not at such a low figure as to endanger the whole finances of the Bill. By reinforcing the finances of the scheme at the weakest point we have adopted the simplest and the soundest scheme. The House might have said that we are not doing enough, but if hon. Members recollect that we are blazing a fresh trail and marking out fresh ground in two vitally important directions the value of the simple propositions of this Bill will be realised—as I think it is being realised.
Take the other main proposition, concerning the increased supply of milk to school children at very much lower prices. What has surprised me in the speeches throughout the Debates to which I have listened, is the suggestion that the supply of cheap milk to school children is an old-established principle of the Government of this country into which we have cut and, which we have reduced to an intolerable extent. The fact is, of course, that these proposals focus the attention of the country for the first time upon it, and give assistance to the very valuable work of increasing the supply of milk at cheap rates to school children. There we strike into new ground, and the whole House will agree with it. We were prepared to bear the criticism that we might have spent a little more money, but we know that we are entering absolutely fresh ground and doing what has never been done before.
With regard to the cleaning up of herds, it is a new thing to see what can be done by giving a premium to cleaning up herds, and by reinforcing the present law, which establishes penalties and even slaughter for tuberculous animals, by the method of premium, encouragement and persuasion. I should have thought that that would commend itself to the House, for the reason that everybody in this country is more easily led than driven. I should have thought that it would also have been obvious from every point of view that gradually to eliminate tuberculous herds from this country without the sudden destruction of animals which have a certain cash value, was a much less expensive way, both for the State
and for the individual. I share entirely the views of my right hon. Friend that only by some such Measure as we have introduced shall we be able to get the social and economic interests of the community concentrated upon the cleaning up of herds.
The last two speeches hardly dealt with the Bill at all, but concentrated on various defects, either theoretical or practical, in the existing Milk Scheme. I do not think it would be proper for me to go into details, but, as the topic has been touched upon, I would point out that these schemes have been in operation for but a short time. There is a wide measure of agreement that agricultural production places itself in so many separate categories that some organisation is required if it is to be properly conducted. There is, indeed, the widest measure of agreement that marketing schemes are essential. It is not surprising, however, at a moment when most of these marketing schemes are in their first year, or their first two years, and when they are introducing to the farmers themselves—because it is they, and not the Government, who run the schemes—an entirely new way of conducting their business, that certain difficulties should show themselves.
Take, for instance, the scheme with which this Bill is concerned, and the statement which has been made by a responsible farmer that, so far as the English marketing scheme is concerned, it has already benefited 75 per cent. of the milk producers. If that statement can be made so short a time after the starting of the scheme, is it too much to expect, after a little more experience, after the details have been more fully understood and the difficulties more successfully grappled with, that the view with which the House entered into the policy of marketing, both in 1931 and in 1933, that such a policy was essential for the agricultural industry, will be thoroughly justified? It seems to me that the future of the milk industry under marketing schemes is safe, and that what is now needed is in the first place to bridge certain temporary difficulties, and, secondly, to extend the opportunities for the consumption of liquid milk by making it both cheaper and less dangerous. These are the objects to which we have
directed ourselves in this Bill, and I, for one, am satisfied that it is a Bill the Third Reading of which can be commended to the House with a perfectly clear mind and conscience, as being in line with the general agricultural policy of which this Parliament has approved, and as dealing in a practical, realistic, and yet progressive way with the difficulties and troubles of the moment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH SUGAR (SUBSIDY) BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

3.9 p.m.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I think that a few words ought to be said on this occasion, but they need be only very few. It is more than three months since this Bill passed its Second Reading; there have been long delays in proceeding with it. It has been a case of
linked sweetness long drawn out.
On the Second Reading I ventured to detain the House at considerable length, and made as full an exposition as I could of the reasons that led me to oppose the policy embodied in the Bill. Although I feel sure that everything I then said has faded from the memories even of those who listened to the speech, yet I do not propose on this occasion to repeat one single word of it. I would only renew my protests against the continuance of this enormously extravagant subsidy, which unquestionably penalises the general public for the benefit of one particular interest. The sums that are now being voted will bring the total expenditure upon the beet-sugar experiment, from subsidy and from rebate of taxation, to a sum of no less than £40,000,000. We have protested against any renewal of the subsidy beyond the date fixed in the original Statute without at least there being a full and careful inquiry as to the manner in which the money has been spent, and what justification might be given for it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer promised in his Budget Speech more than two years ago that such an inquiry would be held before the House was asked to vote any additional sum.
The inquiry has not been held, and the House is being asked to vote an additional sum. The maxims that the Government commend to the House is that we should pay first and inquire after.
The reason why it is necessary to continue the subsidy after the date originally intended, of course, is to enable time to elapse for the interests concerned to combine together in order to create the monopoly which is now being formed. All the interests are combining, the producers and the refiners, in order that they could substitute a new plan which would draw from the consumer in an indirect way sums similar to those that are now being paid from the taxes. Two inquiries, as a matter of fact, are now being held. The Government, having delayed so long the investigation that was promised two years ago, think they will bring the average right by having now two inquiries simultaneously, one under the Agricultural Marketing Act which is being conducted by Mr. Scholefield, and the other a Departmental inquiry which is presided over by Mr. Wilfrid Greene. It seems a strange thing that, while both these inquiries are now sitting, they should have been delayed so long that it is necessary to ask the House to vote several millions of pounds, which is what we are doing now, in order meanwhile to continue the former system of sugar subsidy. There is only one thing to be said in favour of the Bill. It is that an open attack upon the public funds which is brought before Parliament and voted definitely and formally is better than what is now in prospect, a system of subtle, concealed subsidies which withdraw similar sums from the national pocket though not by means of special taxation upon the citizens. One may have some little respect for a highwayman but one can have no respect for a pickpocket. With that final benediction, I take leave of the Bill.

3.14 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: Clearly neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the House will expect that I should go once again into the subject of the principle underlying the Bill. It is admittedly a temporary Measure, a Measure for one year, which will have to be eventually replaced by a long-term policy. I am not saying at the moment whether that long-term policy should be the abandonment of any
attempt to keep alive the beet-sugar industry or an attempt to keep this industry, valuable in itself and for the employment it affords as I and others hope. But I think it is fair to say with regard to the danger which the right hon. Gentleman immediately anticipated, that some subtle attack was about to be made upon the consumer by some back-stairs access to his private funds, that no such attack is made. Any scheme brought forward along the lines of the Marketing Act must be brought before the House, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. It was his Act. It was his party under his leadership which formed the majority that got that Act on the Statute Book.

Sir H. SAMUEL: The first Act.

Mr. ELLIOT: It is under the procedure of the first Act that both those schemes have been evolved. It is a little hard that hon. Members opposite who placed this Act on the Statute Book should twit us with all the imperfections it contains and to claim that we are organising the subtle attack of the pickpocket when we operate legislation which they themselves placed upon the Statute Book. I should hesitate to characterise my right hon. Friend's action in such strong terms, but, if he thinks that his Act lays the public open to attack by pickpockets rather than by assault by highwaymen, we must see what can be done about it. I am not saying that all the Acts which we place upon the Statute Book or which the right hon. Gentleman has supported are perfect. It may be that this Measure may have to be amended, and after this very strong expression of opinion, I shall certainly bring the matter to the notice of my colleagues in the Government. Any scheme brought under the Act will have to be brought before the House. When it is brought before the House, not merely subject to being prayed against, but to an affirmative resolution of the House, then will be the time to make an attack upon it or to defend any scheme put forward, and then I shall be willing to make such a defence. Meanwhile, the public inquiry into the procedure of that Act has been completed. The Scholefield inquiry into the objections to the sugar-marketing scheme has been made, and the report of the Commissioner is in my hands.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Will it be presented to Parliament?

Mr. ELLIOT: Reports under the procedure of this Act, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, are not presented to Parliament. I present a scheme in which I embody, if necessary, any alterations which are the result of the Report, but under the procedure so carefully framed and loyally supported by the right hon. Gentleman, the report itself is not actually laid.

Sir H. SAMUEL: There is nothing to prevent it from being laid.

Mr. ELLIOT: There is nothing actually to prevent it being laid. The report of the Greene Inquiry which is now in progress, will be a document of great public importance. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be fortified with this report when he comes to make a long-term policy, which we all agree is necessary in this respect. The inquiry is proceeding. There is a great deal of ground to be covered. It has many witnesses to hear. It has already heard a great number of witnesses. I think that I can say that it is making very good progress, and that the only ground of quarrel between the right hon. Gentleman and myself is that he has not had the results of the Greene Inquiry sooner. I regret it. If we had been in normal times and had not been working under tremendous pressure, I should have felt the necessity for apologising in coming before the House on this occasion. I wish it had been possible for the report of the Greene Committee to have been available at an earlier date. It is owing to the extreme pressure of circumstances which have fallen upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Agriculture that it has not been possible to get the report forward sooner, so that the House might have had the advantage of deliberating upon it before coming to a conclusion even upon this temporary part of the policy, as it must have the advantage of considering it before coming to the permanent policy.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Is the Scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act? I gather that no action will be taken upon the Scholefield Report until the Greene Committee has reported and the report is made public?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am desirous that I should not take action in putting forward a scheme under the Marketing Act procedure until I and the House have had the benefit of considering the results of the Wilfrid Greene Committee's investigation also. It would be inadvisable to take action under the Agricultural Marketing Act on a matter so closely concerned with this inquiry, and I will give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that I will not take any such action. That is as far as we can go at the present time, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will not raise any further objection.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (APPEALS) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

3.20 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a simple Bill, which I can explain to the House in very few words. Everybody will agree that a proper judicial system should provide for appeals, but everybody will also agree that if there are excessive opportunities of appeal it is not in the real interests of litigants and may give an excessive advantage to a wealthy corporation or a wealthy client, to whom the costs of an appeal, if the appeal proves unsuccessful, are a very small matter. It is for the purpose of restricting appeals that the Bill is introduced. It follows the recommendations made by a committee presided over by Lord Hanworth, and it has two Clauses of substance, and deals with two matters.

The first Clause deals with appeals from the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords. In accordance with the recommendations of the Committee the Clause provides that no appeal shall lie to the House of Lords from the Court of Appeal except with the leave of the Court of Appeal, or with the leave of the House of Lords, or a Committee set up for the purpose of dealing with that particular matter. At the present time a litigant has the right to take his case from the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords
and thereby enter upon a third and in some cases a fourth appeal from the original hearing. I do not suggest that there are any considerable number of cases in which that right of appeal is abused, but it certainly is desirable that no appeal should be taken to the final tribunal unless it is a proper case for that purpose, namely, a case involving an important point of law, and on which there is some doubt as to what the final decision shall be. Therefore, the first Clause deals with that matter. The second Sub-section of Clause 1 provides that there may be a committee set up to deal with the question of leave to appeal and on that committee there must be at least three Lords of Appeal. The third Sub-section preserves the position in certain cases where there is at present no right of appeal from the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords.

Clause 2 deals with appeals from the county court. The position as to that at present is that there is an appeal from the county court on questions of law but not on questions of fact to a Divisional Court which consists of two judges of first instance, judges of the High Court. From that court there can be an appeal to the Court of Appeal, and from the Court of Appeal again, subject to Clause 1 of this Bill, there is a right of appeal to the House of Lords. With things as they are at the present time in regard to county court cases, it very often happens that one litigant is a person of small means and the issue involved financially is not much, but there is a possibility of there being three appeals, that is to say, four courts dealing with the issue. I think the House will agree that that is not a desirable state of affairs; and the Clause remedies it.

Clause 2 provides that appeals from the county court, instead of going to the Divisional Court and then to the Court of Appeal, shall go straight to the Court of Appeal. The matter might have been dealt with in other ways. The Court of Appeal might have been cut out altogether and the decision of the Divisional Court made final, but this method, which I commend to the House as the best, is in conformity with the present procedure under Workmen's Compensation Act cases. These cases go in the first instance to the county court and appeals go straight to the Court of Appeal. That has given general satisfaction, and this
Bill will bring ordinary appeals from the county court into the same position. If anyone reads Clause 2 they will find it a little more complicated than I have stated, but the position is that there are certain special Acts, prior to the County Courts Act, 1888, which have special procedure and special provisions as to appeals. In some cases there can be an appeal on questions of law and fact. In one case, for example, under the Guardianship of Infants Act, there is an appropriate procedure by which appeals come before a Chancery Judge and the judge can hear the matter in chambers. The complexities in Clause 2 and the Schedule are to preserve these special methods of procedure for special cases where it seems appropriate that they should be preserved. That explains the Bill, and I ask the House to give it a Second Reading.

3.27 p.m.

Mr. GROVES: I only want to say to the Solicitor-General that it must not be assumed that because it is the end of a Friday sitting and a thin House that Bills like this can be put through without any observations as to the merits of the proposal, although we may not be well versed as to the details of the Measure. From my experience of the courts of referees, I have found that when people have been appearing before them they are given a slip with two lines upon it "leave to appeal," and "no leave to appeal," and the bulk of these people never receive the right to appeal. Clause 2 is a little complicated, particularly to a lay man, but I should like to ask, who is to decide, what tribunal is to decide, which cases shall have the right to go to the Court of Appeal? The Solicitor-General has not told us. Is the well-to-do litigant to decide it, or the poor litigant, or will there be some competent tribunal to advise poor litigants as to the wisdom of appealing? If the Solicitor-General satisfies my Friends and I that poor litigants will be advised as to whether it is wise or unwise to appeal by some competent tribunal there will be no objection to the Bill from this side of the House, but if it is to be left to chance we are a little perturbed. I shall be glad if the hon. and learned Member will tell us what tribunal or authority is going to guide poor litigants as to the advisability of an appeal.

3.30 p.m.

Mr. MILNE: This Bill comes here under illustrious auspices. In another place I believe it bore the imprimatur of the Lord High Chancellor, and it is to give effect to the recommendations of a Committee presided over by the Master of the Rolls. In such circumstances it needs no commendation from me, and I rise for quite another purpose. The Bill contains a defect. Fortunately the Bill lends itself to amendment, and at a later stage I shall propose an Amendment which will remedy the defect. The defect is this: The Bill proposes to restrict the right of appeal from the Court of Appeal in England, in effect to make the Court of Appeal in England the supreme court in fact as well as in name. But I scan the Bill and scan it in vain to find any reference whatever to the Court of Session in Scotland. The compelling reasons which constrained the Committee to make their recommendations apply with fourfold force to the case of the Court of Session.
One of the disquieting signs of the times in Scotland is the decline in the volume of litigation. It is disquieting because it indicates and arises from the industrial depression. Judicial statistics are sometimes truly said to be the best barometer of trade. But it is disquieting and disturbing for another reason. The law courts in Scotland have in large measure fallen into disrepute. If two business men in Scotland have a question to settle they will resort to an arbiter, and they will do that although he may not be the appropriate tribunal for the question they have to decide. They will resort to an arbiter and they will even submit to injustice, but the one thing they will not do is to get themselves entangled in a litigation. For my part I have very considerable sympathy with them. Once you embark on a litigation in Scotland you do not know what it is going to cost and when it is going to end.
The learned Solicitor-General gave us a description of a vista of appeals in England. I will not weary the House with a similar description, but here is a case which has a strong family resemblance to the illustration we have been given. A case is commenced in the sheriff court. It is heard by the sheriff-substitute. The unsuccessful litigant takes the case to the sheriff depute. It
is heard all over again by the sheriff depute. He arrives at the same conclusion as the substitute and confirms the decision. You may say that surely then the case will end. Not a bit of it. The unsuccessful litigant will then proceed on his travels to Edinburgh, and once again the case will be heard, this time by four of the Lords of Session. They arrive at the same conclusion for the third time and the decision is confirmed. Is not that an end of the whole matter? No, the worst is to follow. The unsuccessful litigant will now appeal to the House of Lords.
To some legal minds, the right of appeal has an irresistible attraction. There is a certain type of legal mind which always finds it possible to conceive of some new argument or some facet of an old argument which can be presented provided you can get a tribunal to listen to it. To a certain type of legal mind there is, indeed, no reason at all why a litigation should ever come to an end, but we must take a broad view of the matter and I make bold to advance this proposition. No reasonable man would propose to abolish the right of appeal altogether but all the public want and all that is necessary is that you should have such a tribunal as will afford a speedy decision, pronounced by a reasonably competent court. No one I think would be so foolhardy as to suggest that the Court of Session in Edinburgh is not a competent court. Let me remind the House that in our criminal system in Scotland there is no such thing as a right of appeal to the House of Lords. There never has been in our history. In the building and developing of the criminal system in Scotland we have never had the benefit of the guidance of the House of Lords.
What has been the result? English Members I suppose would say, "Chaos." But if you compare our Scottish criminal system and practice with the corresponding system and practice in England you will find that the Scottish system, by the speed of its operation, by its anxious solicitude for the interest of the accused and by its efficiency, is incomparably superior to the system which obtains south of the Border. The hon. and learned Solicitor-General smiles but it is incontrovertible that, by our own unaided exertions in Scotland, we have built
up and developed a criminal code which, is the envy and admiration of the civilised world. This Bill is a very modest little Bill. As the Solicitor-General has told us, the proposal is not that we should abolish the right of appeal but merely that we should limit and restrict it. The Bill accomplishes that and will get rid of the vexatious appeal. I cordially support the Second Heading and when the Bill has been dealt with in Commitee and returns to us for Third Reading, I hope I shall be able to support it even more cordially in an altered form and that English Members will not deny to Scotland the benefits which they propose to confer upon their own country.

3.38 p.m.

Sir JOHN WITHERS: As one who spends his life in the administration of the law I should like to add a few words to what has been said on this Bill. With regard to Clause 1, I unhesitatingly support the Bill upon the grounds which the Solicitor-General has stated. With regard to Clause 2 a rather different question arises. Hon. Members perhaps do do not fully appreciate the fact that appeals from the county court have hitherto been heard in the first instance by a divisional court which consists of two judges. Now that will end and the appeal will be heard by the Court of Appeal direct, and the Court of Appeal consists of three judges and therefore for each appeal there will be one additional judge. That is a very serious matter. So far, the divisional courts have been formed from judges of first instance and judges of first instance are very heavily overworked at present. There is a great deal of work in arrears and if the Bill means that the Court of Appeal in these cases is to be constituted from judges of first instance, then those judges will be drawn from their ordinary work and further delays will take place. My suggestion is that if the Government wish to do this, they ought to set up a third Court of Appeal and leave the divisional court judges to go on with their ordinary work of first instance, of which they have plenty to do. I think that it is very shortsighted not to do that. If we do not do it, it will only mean greater delay. I am sorry if my suggestions do not come within the Title of this Bill, but I do urge the Government very seriously to do this. It is certainly cheap, because
the administration of the law pays for itself, arid makes a little profit. Therefore, I urge the Government very strongly to supplement this Bill by another one.

3.41 p.m.

Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: I wish, first of all, as Vice-Chairman of the Bar Council, to say that the Bar Council welcome this Bill. I also want to join very largely in what my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) has just said. May I say one word with regard to the first Clause? There can be no doubt that an unrestricted right of appeal to the House of Lords may be a matter of very great oppression. An unsuccessful though wealthy litigant may at present go as a right to the House of Lords, and that means involving the successful litigant in an enormous amount of expense which may really, in the end, although the decision remains the same, deprive him largely of the fruits of victory. It is as well that that right should be supervised. The right to apply to a Committee of the House of Lords, in the opinion of the Bar Council, fully safeguards the interests of the litigant in every way. At the same time, the restricted right of appeal does prevent the present system under which appeals to the House of Lords may be matters of very great oppression, and it is right that that right should be restricted in the way suggested.
With regard to the second Clause, we approve entirely the suggestion that appeals from the county court should go direct to the Court of Appeal. There is at the moment a great deal of confusion as to whether the right does lie in certain cases to the Divisional Court or to the Court of Appeal. All those doubts will be set at rest. It is quite unsatisfactory that one appeal from the county court should go to the Court of Appeal direct and another to the Divisional Court. All that will be done away with, and those doubts set at rest. I would suggest to the Government that they might also consider very seriously whether it would not be better at the same time to take steps to provide that a certain number of other cases which now go to the Divisional Court, with the subsequent right of appeal to the Court of Appeal, should not also go direct to the Court of Appeal. There is very little distinction
in the class of cases, and it would be far better to have one tribunal than two tribunals.
One must not forget that the county court is primarily the poor man's court, and that this Measure is going to add something like 100 appeals a year to the Court of Appeal. It is of vital importance that appeals from what is the poor man's court should not be delayed, and it is for that reason that I understand last week—I was not present myself—the Bar Council passed a resolution that this Bill should be supplemented by a definite addition to the present Court of Appeal, so that it might deal with increased business. One must not forget that the recommendation that cases should go direct to the Court of Appeal was in part made with a view to relieving the King's Bench Division Judges of the burden which they have at present and enabling them to deal with the great mass of arrears that there is in that Division. For that reason, we welcome the fact that King's Bench Judges will be relieved and set free to do their ordinary work, but if, as has been suggested, all that is going to happen is that a third division of the Court of Appeal is to be set up by drawing from the King's Bench Division, confusion will be worse confounded, because the only result will be that, whereas these appeals are now dealt with by two judges, they will be dealt with in future by three judges, and arrears will grow up much more heavily in the future than in the past. I hope the Government will take that resolution into consideration, and, while this Bill will make far more efficient and expeditious the work of the courts, it can only do so if, at the same time, they take steps to increase the Court of Appeal.

3.47 p.m.

Major LLEWELLIN: As we have had some words from a layman, a Scottish lawyer, a leading solicitor, and a leading King's Counsel, it will not be amiss if one from the junior Bar says a few words. We welcome this further instalment and pay tribute to the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers for the way in which, during recent months, they have pressed forward with this matter of law reform. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves), Clause 1 will mean that the appeal to
the House of Lords is not at the discretion of the rich litigant, but either of the Court of Appeal or of the House of Lords itself, or the Appeal Tribunal of that House, whatever it is going to be called. I think we all welcome that. Those of us who read the law reports in the "Times" this morning must have read the observations of a learned law lord giving judgment in the case of Mosley against the "Daily News," in which he commented that it was quite unnecessary on a matter of mere procedure that there should have been, not only a trial before a master, but before a judge in chambers, before the Court of Appeal, and before the House of Lords, on a mere interlocutory matter. It is that kind of thing that Clause 1 of this Bill will stop.
With regard to Clause 2, I think we all welcome the doing away with the Divisional Court and appeals going to the Appeal Court, but I would like to re-enforce what the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) both said with regard to the question of the Appeal Court. The report of the Business of the Courts Committee, with regard to doing away with the Lords Justices and recruiting the Court of Appeal from various judges of the King's Bench Division, has found very little favour among practising members of the Bar and, I think, among those Members of this House who have studied these questions. The Court of Appeal as at present constituted has a very high authority in this land, and we do not wish to see, by having a changing court, the decisions less uniform than they are at present through having the court always constituted from the same personnel.
I am glad to see that, at any rate, there has been no provision in this Bill to alter the status of Lords Justices, because I believe that that rests on one of the provisions of the Supreme Court of Adjudicature Act. I hope that no such attempt will be made, but, on the other band, I agree with both my hon. Friends who have spoken that we ought if necessary—I think it is necessary—to set up a third Court of Appeal which would deal not only with the matters with which the Court of Criminal Appeal deals, but with the additional matters which will come to the Court of Appeal by reason of
Clause 2 of this Bill. I am afraid that it will not be the English Members of Parliament who will prevent my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Milne) from getting what he wants in this Bill, because, so far as I can see, it would not be within the scope and Title of the Measure to make it apply to Scotland. That seems to be a matter for another Bill. All I would say to him is that if he wants something done, he should urge upon his own Law Officers for Scotland to take the good measures which the Law Officers of England have done in regard to law reform in recent months.

3.52 p.m.

Sir GERALD HURST: I hope that when the Solicitor-General replies he will give the House an assurance on what is the one vital criticism that has been made of the provisions of this Bill. I agree with what has fallen from my hon. Friends on this question. As pure machinery the provisions of the Bill in its present form are unexceptionable, but the working of these reforms does not depend upon machinery but on personalities. By greatly increasing the work of the Court of Appeal you make it impossible for the existing panel of lords justices to deal with the number of appeals. How are you going to deal with the appeals? That is a question which must be answered before the House really arrives at an opinion whether or not this is a good Bill. Are you going to draft the lords justices ad hoc from judges of first instance, or from a third Court of Appeal? This is not a criticism of detail, but goes to the roots of Clause 2 of the Bill.
I strongly support what has been said by other hon. and learned Members on this question. It is most desirable there should be a third Court of Appeal consisting of three lords justices, one of them, I should suggest, to be drawn from the Chancery Division and two from the King's Bench Division, so that there should be the happy blend which we have in the present Courts of Appeal. It is vital in order to keep confidence in the Court of Appeal, to have a court in which the profession and the country can trust. Everybody knows there is congestion in the King's Bench Division. One of the advantages of abolishing the Divisional Court is that judges will be able to deal
with cases of first instance and not be diverted from their ordinary work. What is the use of saving time in one direction and adding to the congestion in another? It is essential to have further lords justices appointed so as to make this reform a real one. The cost is trifling, the need is great, and I hope the Solicitor-General will not merely give us an assurance that the matter will be considered, but will say that it will be acted upon and carried into effect at the same time that this Bill becomes law.

3.54 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: An hon. Member opposite referred to the procedure in the Court of Referees under the Unemployment Insurance Act. So far as an appeal to the House of Lords is concerned, there is a somewhat similar procedure in that the court itself, or the House of Lords, will decide if it is a proper case for appeal. As far as the county court side of the Bill is concerned, there is at present an appeal as of right, and that will remain unaltered, the only difference being that the case will go straight to the Court of Appeal and will not have an intermediate stage. As to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Milne), in a world where there are most frequently dissatisfied people, it is comforting to meet anyone so wholly satisfied with anything as he is with the administration of the criminal law in Scotland; but as to the point he raised I am afraid it will not be possible to deal with Scotland in this Bill. I believe, however, the matter is under consideration. The courts there have different names and the whole technical nomenclature is different, and it would be quite impossible to deal with Scotland in this Bill, but I have no doubt that those concerned will take note of the points he has put forward this afternoon.
I come now to what was said I think by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Major Llewellin) and also by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst). I think they all expressed the view that this Measure will involve increased work for the Court of Appeal. Matters which at
present are being tried by two judges will be tried by three judges, and they suggested that this would do more harm than good unless the Judicial Bench were increased in numbers. I would like to say a word on what can happen at present. A Third Division of the Court of Appeal can be set up under the Judicature Act, and the existing personnel, the Master of the Rolls and the five Lords Justices, could sit two and two and two in three courts, reinforced by judges of first instance from either the King's Bench or the Chancery Division. I think that in the calculation he put forward my hon. and learned Friend did not make the allowance that has to be made for the present appeals from the Divisional Court to the Court of Appeal. There will now be only one field of appeal.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: There are about 100 appeals to the Divisional Court, now tried by two judges, which will in future require three. At present about eight of those cases go to the Court of Appeal. Therefore, what we are doing is to send 100 cases which will require three judges instead of eight which now require three judges.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My hon. and learned Friends are perfectly right that this will involve increased expenditure of judicial time, and to that extent it increases the argument, with which I am familiar, that in view of the arrears, matters would be expeditiously disposed of if more judges were appointed. I am not in a position to give any definite assurance, except to say that, naturally, everything that has been said this afternoon will receive very careful consideration, and also that we are alive to the fact that the passage of this Bill strengthens the case which has been put forward.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 2.

Adjourned at One Minute before Four o'Clock until Monday next, 2nd July.